<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">390630</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).12</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">1099</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Industry Wages in Pakistan (1995-2015)</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Khalid</surname>
      <given-names>Umer</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>School of Economics, Quaid-i-Azam University</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">PhD Scholar</named-content>
    <addr-line>Islamabad</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Umer Khalid, PhD Scholar, School of Economics,Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.. Contact: 0</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>31</day>
  <month>03</month>
  <year>2019</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>03</month>
  <year>2019</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>16</day>
  <month>02</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>4</volume>
  <issue>1</issue>
  <season>Winter</season>
  <fpage>90</fpage>
  <lpage>99</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>16</day>
      <month>02</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/impact-of-trade-liberalization-on-the-industry-wages-in-pakistan-19952015-"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/1d6WTZb5N9.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/1d6WTZb5N9.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>The paper estimates the effects of trade reforms on workers&apos; earnings in Pakistan&apos;s manufacturing sector during 1995-2015, employing data from 14 rounds of the Pakistan Labour Force Survey. OLS technique has been used for estimation and separate analysis for workers engaged in informal manufacturing activities is also undertaken. The results indicate that a tariff fall on intermediate products is associated with a rise in real earnings of workers employed in the manufacturing sector during this period, while a corresponding decline in tariffs on final goods has no effect on worker&apos;s wages. The results show that real wages of workers employed in the mainly export oriented industries of food, beverages and tobacco, textiles, apparel and leather and non-metallic mineral industries have declined over the twenty years period of trade reforms implemented in Pakistan. On the other hand, real wages are observed to have increased in the chemical and petroleum and basic metals industries.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Trade Liberalization</kwd>
  <kwd>Wages</kwd>
  <kwd>Input</kwd>
  <kwd>Output Tariffs</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>2708</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>6</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>Trade liberalization has been shown to have increased growth, productivity and efficiency across the developing economies (Busse &amp; Koniger, 2012). Subsequent research has explored the issue of trade reforms on labour markets in developing economies. The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem (1941) stipulates that developed countries produce skill intensive products, whereas developing countries produce labour intensive goods, offers clear theoretical predictions about the influence of trade reforms on worker’s earnings around developing countries.  The linkages between trade liberalization and wages have been examined by numerous studies encompassing both the developed and developing countries. This strand of literature has mainly made use of the industry wage premium methodology introduced by Krueger and Summers (1988) and mostly covers Latin American countries, which pursued trade liberalization policies relatively earlier in the 1980s.</p><p>The findings of a large section of this body of empirical evidence contradict the a priori expectations of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, as they show that trade liberalization has widened wage-gap among unskilled and skilled workers [Feliciano (2001), Galiani and Sanguinetti (2003), Pavcnik et. al (2004), Pavcnik and Goldberg (2005), Harrison and Hanson (1999), Revenga (1997), and Robertson (2005)]. However, some studies [Kumar and Mishra (2007), Galiani  and Porto (2010) and Amiti and Cameron (2012)] find that trade reforms resulted in a reduction in the skilled-unskilled wage-gap within the manufacturing industries in India, Argentina and Indonesia, respectively. In case of Thailand, Jayanthakumaran et al. (2013) observe increase in wage premiums due to a fall in tariffs on final goods, while a decline in tariffs of intermediate goods exerts a stronger positive effect on wage premiums.</p><p>The present study offers newer perspectives on distributional consequences of trade liberalization on wages, in respect of a developing country – Pakistan, which has implemented wide ranging trade liberalization reforms since 1990s. These trade reforms encompassed not only reduction in tariffs but also focused on lowering non-tariff barriers, like import quotas and import surcharges (Liaqat 2013). Pakistan significantly liberalized its tariffs, resulting in the peak tariff rate falling from 225 percent in 1987 to 65 percent by 1996, which was subsequently brought down to 25 percent in 2002. The unweighted average tariff rate went down from 61.1 percent in 1992 to 42 percent in 1996, which slid down to 17.3 percent by 2002 (Pursell, Khan &amp; Gulzar, 2011).</p><p>Pakistan initiated trade reforms under the framework of an IMF sponsored structural adjustment program that the country entered into due to severe balance of payments crisis. Since this program of trade reforms was exogenous, it can be used as a natural experiment to investigate the influence of trade opening on the labour market. The present study extends the existing</p><p>literature in a number of ways. It focuses on both the formal and informal segments of Pakistan’s manufacturing sector, as previous research has mainly examined the impact of trade liberalization on formal segments. Moreover, it also examines the effect of trade liberalization separately for workers engaged in informal sector employment. In addition, the study explores the effect of fall in both tariffs on final goods and those on intermediate products to examine overall effect on wage earnings. The study employs a large sample of pooled worker level data from 14 rounds of the Labour Force Survey over a twenty-year period to determine trade liberalization’s impact on real earnings of workers in the country’s manufacturing sector.</p><p>The paper is comprised of six sections. Section 2 presents empirical methodology, while the data used, and construction of variables is discussed in Section 3. The findings of the empirical analysis are presented in Section 4. Concluding remarks are given in Section 5, while the last section provides policy implications.</p><p><break/></p><p>Empirical Specification</p><p>The analysis of industry-level trade liberalization on real wages is started off by estimating a basic model, based on the human capital literature (Mincer, 1958, &amp; Becker, 1962). This model which includes human capital characteristics, such as education and experience (proxied by age), worker characteristics, such as marital status and gender and educational attainment and indicators of broad manufacturing industrial sector, is given as:</p><p>?realwage?_i= ?_o+?_1 ?age?_i+ ?_2 ?age?_i^2+ ?_1 ?married?_i+ ?_2 ?male?_i+ ?_3 ?technical?_i+?_4 in?formal?_i+ ?S_i+ ?l_i+ ?_i                 (1)</p><p>where real wagei, the logarithm of yearly real wages is the dependent variable. Agei and agei2 are proxies for experience and experience square, respectively ( As age and experience are highly correlated, the former can be used as a suitable proxy for the latter). Dummy variables are included for marital status, gender and various levels of educational attainment as well as for technical training received. A dummy variable for informal sector employment accounts for the impact of wages if a worker is employed in informal sector. S represents dummies for the level of education while the manufacturing industry dummies are represented by I. Manufacturing dummies are added to capture the industry wise variations within the manufacturing sector.</p><p>Using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method, the basic equation for pooled sample comprising of data from 14 rounds of the LFS is estimated to highlight the important determinants of wages in the manufacturing sector during selected time period. This serves as a baseline for the subsequent estimation of the impact of trade liberalization on real wages.</p><p>Following this, the basic model (eq. 1) is extended for modeling influence of trade liberalization on wages through controlling for year fixed effects and including interaction term of a manufacturing industry with its respective tariff rates. The industry-wise tariff rates (output and input tariffs) indicate industry-specific trade liberalization, while the year fixed effects capture the economy-wide effect of a specific time period on wages. This extended model is represented as:</p><p>?realwage?_i= ?_o+?_1 ?age?_it+ ?_2 ?age?_it^2+ ?_1 ?married?_it+ ?_2 ?male?_it+ ?_3 ?technical?_it+                      ?_4 in?formal?_it+ ?S_it  +?l_it  +??l?_it ?avgt?_it+?_(t=2)^14?Y_t    + ?_i (2)</p><p>Where real wageit shows the wage for the ith cross-sectional unit at time t and ??l?_it ?avgt?_it is the interaction term of a particular manufacturing industry and tariff rate. Yt represents the time dummies for the 14 years (year 1994-95 is taken as the base category). All other variables are the same as used in model 1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Data and Variables</title>
<p>The
study utilizes micro data from 14 rounds of the Pakistan Labour Force Survey
(LFS), conducted over the period 1994-95 to 2014-15, encompassing the period of
trade liberalization reforms undertaken in Pakistan. The use of this long-term
series of employment data over a period of 20 years helps in carrying out a
robust analysis of the trade reforms effect on wages in the manufacturing
sector of Pakistan. The LFS captures employment at two-digit Pakistan Standard
Industrial Classification (PSIC), although more recent rounds of LFS have
employment information available at the four-digit PSIC level.</p><p>To make the definition of industry
employment consistent over this 20 year period, the study uses employment at
the two-digit PSIC level. In each of the 14 rounds of the LFS, only the sample
of workers engaged in different forms of paid employment in the 9 two-digit
industries of the manufacturing sector have been used, as LFS only reports
wages for paid employees. The sample of workers has been restricted to the age
group of 15-65 years as per the international definition of working age
population.</p><p>In line with the existing literature,
the outcomes of trade liberalization on wages in the manufacturing sector are
analyzed using two measures of tariffs – output tariff and input tariffs. The
output tariff represents the tariffs on final goods, as shown in the country’s
tariff schedule; while input tariffs show the tariffs applicable on
intermediate goods/ raw materials.  Both
these tariff measures have been defined at two-digit PSIC industry level, for
which tariff data during this period classified under the Harmonized System has
been converted into the corresponding 9 two-digit industries using the
concordance developed by Sarwar (2016).</p><p>The output tariff measure, representing
tariff on final produced goods, is the trade weighted average of the two-digit
HS tariff lines falling under each of the nine manufacturing industries has
been obtained from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s
(UNCTAD) Trade Analysis Information System (TRAINS) database. The input tariffs
represent a weighted mean of output tariffs, with the import shares of raw
materials by each two-digit PSIC industry taken as weights. This import share
is obtained from the Census of Manufacturing Industries (CMI) data. (The import
shares of raw material at firm level, across the two-digit PSIC industries in
the manufacturing sector, have been obtained from the 2000-01 round of the CMI.
As other rounds of CMI do not give this information, it is assumed that the
import shares stay constant over the period of our analysis, i.e., 1994-2015.)</p><p>Table
1 presents the variables used in our analysis. As the wage data obtained from
different rounds of the LFS is time series data, it has been adjusted for
inflation. The nominal wage data from different rounds of LFS has been adjusted
for inflation using GDP deflator, with 2014-15 used as base year to deflate the
wage variable.</p><p>The summary statistics of the pooled
dataset, comprising of 14 rounds of LFS, employed in the regression analysis is
shown in table 2.Table 2 also gives the summary statistics of the sample of the
workers involved in informal sector employment across the different industries
of Pakistan’s manufacturing sector during the period of analysis. A comparison
of the full sample with the sample of informal sector workers shows a slightly
lower mean age of workers in informal employment. A higher proportion of
informal sector workers had no formal education/ less than primary level of
education compared to the full sample (61 percent <italic>vs.</italic> 58 percent), while surprisingly a higher share of informal
sector workers had degree and above educational attainment (10 percent <italic>vs</italic>. 7 percent) and had obtained
technical training (30 percent <italic>vs.</italic> 23
percent).</p><p>The trends in output and input tariffs
over the period under review are presented in table 3. The analysis indicates
that towards start of the trade reforms (1995), most of the manufacturing
industries were operating behind high levels of tariff protection, with tariffs
being highest for the non-metallic mineral products; food, beverages &amp;
tobacco and wood, wood products &amp; furniture industries. As a result of the
subsequent trade liberalization reforms, both output and input tariff rates
have declined considerably over time across the nine two-digit PSIC industries.
The decline in tariff rates has been greater during the 1995-2005 period, while
tariffs in some industries have gone up slightly during 2010-15.</p><p><bold>Table
1. </bold>Variables
used for Examining Impact of Trade Liberalization on Wages</p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Variable </bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Description</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Dependent
  variables</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Log
  real wages (two-digitPSIC level)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Log
  of annual wages (in Rupees) divided by the GDP deflator</p> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Independent/
  explanatory variables               </bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold><italic>Worker
  characteristics </italic></bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Age
  of worker (proxy for experience)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age
  Squared</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Square
  of age</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Gender</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  male, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Never married</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1
  if  never married, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Currently 
  Married</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  currently married, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Widow/ divorced</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  widowed/ divorced, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Education</p> </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>No
  formal education/ below primary</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  no formal education/ education below primary level, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Middle</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  primary to middle level education, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Secondary</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  above middle and upto intermediate, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Degree
  and above</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  education of bachelor’s degree and above, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Technical
  training</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  worker has acquired technical training, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Informal
  employment</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if
  working in informal sector enterprise, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Industrial dummies</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  1</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in Food, Beverages &amp; Tobacco, 0
  otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  2</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1if employed in Textile, Wearing Apparel and
  Leather, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  3</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed wood and wood products, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  4</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in paper and paper products,
  printing and publishing, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  5</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in chemicals, petroleum, coal,
  rubber &amp; plastic, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  6</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in non-metallic mineral products, 0
  otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  7</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in basic metal industries, 0
  otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  8</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in fabricated metal products,
  machinery &amp; equipment, 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  9</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>=1 if employed in other manufacturing industries
  and handicrafts (reference category), 0 otherwise</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Tariffs</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Output
  tariff rate</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Weighted
  applied tariff rates for industries at two-digitPSIC level</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Input
  tariff rate</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output tariff rates weighted by share of imported
  inputs for industries at two digit PSIC level</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><bold>Table 2. </bold>Summary Statistics of Dataset used
for Examining Impact of Trade Liberalization on Wages</p><table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th> <p><bold>Variables</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Full Sample</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Informal Workers Sample</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Dependent
  variables</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Log of annual real wages (two-digit
  PSIC level)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.670</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.407</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.766)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.780)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Independent
  variables</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>30.595</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>29.237</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(11.629)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(11.462)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age squared</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1071.304</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>986.210</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(828.564)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(801.604)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Gender</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.888</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.800</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.315)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.399)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Marital status</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Unmarried</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.421</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.458</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.494)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.498)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Married</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.561</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.518</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.496)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.499)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Widow/Divorced</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.018</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.022</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.133)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.149)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Educational Status</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>No formal education</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.575</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.697</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.494)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.459)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Middle</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.152</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.151</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.359)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.358)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Secondary</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.204</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.140</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.103)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.347)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Degree &amp; above</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.069</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.010</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.254)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.102)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Technical Training</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.230</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.298</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.421)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.457)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Informal Employment</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.446</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>-</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.497)</p> </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Industrial dummies</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 1</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.116</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.103</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.321)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.305)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 2</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.476</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.497</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.500)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.500)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 3</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.040</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.074</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.196)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.261)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 4</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.027</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.026</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.164)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.161)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 5</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.058</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.022</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.234)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.147)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 6</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.104</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.072</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.305)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.259)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 7</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.021</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.009</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.142)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.096)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 8</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.090</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.097</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.286)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.296)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry 9</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.068</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.096</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.252)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(0.295)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Tariff</bold></p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top">  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Output tariff</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>18.961</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>17.853</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(9.770)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(7.715)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Input tariff</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.382</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.084</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>(2.345)</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>(1.932)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Number of observation</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>58,003</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>25,896</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Mean in top row</p><p>Standard deviation in parenthesis</p><p><bold>Table
3. </bold>Trends in Industrial Tariff Rates (%)</p><table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td></td><td> <p><bold>Tariff
  Rates</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>1995</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>2000</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>2005</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>2010</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>2015</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  1</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>62.49</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>28.32</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>22.22</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>26.71</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>20.32</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>6.73</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.05</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.39</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.88</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.19</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  2</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>49.36</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>25.32</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>14.90</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.91</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>14.31</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.68</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.89</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.11</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.04</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  3</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>57.19</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>26.15</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>15.02</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.65</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>12.72</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.27</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.58</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.33</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.30</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.28</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  4</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>46.61</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>17.16</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>12.63</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.25</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.68</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.40</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.20</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.09</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.75</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.86</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  5</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>45.37</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>19.87</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.80</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>10.42</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>10.51</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>19.65</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>8.60</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.11</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.51</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.55</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  6</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>67.52</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>32.99</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.39</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>24.42</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>21.55</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.79</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.85</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.20</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.37</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.21</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  7</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>38.53</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>17.45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>9.25</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>7.56</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>8.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.77</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.33</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.83</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.31</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.46</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  8</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>45.82</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>28.53</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.90</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>14.22</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>13.56</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>17.80</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>11.09</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.40</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.52</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  9</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Output</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>54.62</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>27.77</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>15.55</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>15.73</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>15.13</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top"> <p>Input</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>7.56</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.85</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.15</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.18</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.10</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Results</title>
<p>The
table 4 reported the OLS estimates of the basic model, eq. (1). According to
the estimation results age has a positive relationship with real wages during
the period under review, with wages of workers increasing with age at a
decreasing rate. Male workers earn more than their female counterparts. The
analysis by marital status shows that in comparison to unmarried workers, their
married counterparts have higher earnings, while widowed/ divorced workers, on
average, have lower wages.</p><p>The findings with respect to
educational attainment show that in comparison to workers with no formal
education/ education below primary level, the wages of workers increase
monotonically across the subsequent three education levels – middle, secondary
and degree and above, with the returns to education being highest for workers
with educational level of degree and above. Workers with technical training are
observed to have significantly higher earnings, while workers engaged in
informal sector employment earn lower than their counterparts employed in
formal sector.</p><p>There is considerable variation
observed in wages across the nine manufacturing industries, over the sample
period, in comparison to wage levels in ‘other manufacturing industries’ which
is the reference category. Real wages of workers in four industries – food
&amp; beverages, textile &amp; apparel, paper &amp; publishing and non-metallic
mineral products are observed to have declined over the 20-year period in
comparison to the base category; with this finding being statistically
significant. On the other hand, real wages in the remaining four industries
increased during the period under review, although the finding for fabricated
metals and equipment is not statistically significant.</p><p><bold>Table 4. </bold>Regression Results of Basic Model
for Pooled Sample, 1994-95 to 2014-15</p><table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Variables</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Coefficient</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age</p> </td><td> <p>0.045***</p> <p>(0.002)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Age
  Squared</p> </td><td> <p>-0.0005***</p> <p>(0.000)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Gender</p>  </td><td> <p>0.757***</p> <p>(0.015)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Marital
  status</bold></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Married</p> </td><td> <p>0.018**</p> <p>(0.009)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Widow/Divorced</p> </td><td> <p>-0.060***</p> <p>(0.023)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Educational
  Status</bold></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Middle</p> </td><td> <p>0.102***</p> <p>(0.007)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Secondary</p> </td><td> <p>0.210***</p> <p>(0.007)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Degree
  &amp; above</p> </td><td> <p>0.855***</p> <p>(0.018)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Technical
  Training</p> </td><td> <p>0.095***</p> <p>(0.009)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Informal
  Employment</p> </td><td> <p>-0.191***</p> <p>(0.007)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Industrial dummies</bold></p> </td><td></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry_1</p> </td><td> <p>-0.093***</p> <p>(0.015)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _2</p> </td><td> <p>-0.071***</p> <p>(0.013)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _3</p> </td><td> <p>0.007</p> <p>(0.021)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _4</p> </td><td> <p>-0.051***</p> <p>(0.020)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _5</p> </td><td> <p>0.038**</p> <p>(0.017)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _6</p> </td><td> <p>-0.047***</p> <p>(0.016)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _7</p> </td><td> <p>0.127***</p> <p>(0.028)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Industry
  _8</p> </td><td> <p>0.002</p> <p>(0.016)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Constant</p> </td><td> <p>10.384***</p> <p>(0.079)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>R-squared</p> </td><td> <p>0.3762</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Province
  x time dummies</p> </td><td> <p>Yes</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Number
  of observations</p> </td><td> <p>58,003</p> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p>Robust standard errors in parenthesis.</p> <p>***, **, * show significance at 1 %, 5 % and 10 %
  respectively.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The results of eq. (2) showing
the effects of trade reforms on real earnings, estimated using OLS are
presented in table 5.  Since micro level
data from LFS is obtained from cluster sampling, the standard errors are corrected
for clustering at the primary sampling unit (PSU) level in the two models shown
in table 5.</p><p>The results indicate that a reduction
in output tariffs leads to a fall in real wages, while a decline in input
tariffs results in a rise in the real wages; with only the results with respect
to input tariffs being statistically significant. The effect on real wages is
observed to vary across the different industries, with workers in the food
&amp; beverages, textile &amp; apparel, wood &amp; wood products, paper &amp;
publishing and non-metallic mineral products industries experiencing a fall in
real wages over this period, while real wages of workers in the remaining three
industries witnessed an increase.</p><p>The results of the model run on the
pooled sample of informal sector workers over the 14 rounds of the LFS are
given in column 2 of table 5. Goldberg and Pavcnik (2003) postulate that firms
respond to increased competition from cheaper imports in the wake of lower
tariffs brought about by trade reforms by reducing formal employment and
substituting it with cheaper informal employment. The results point towards a
positive association between both final goods tariffs (output tariffs) and
intermediate goods tariffs (input tariffs) and real wages. However, both the
results are not statistically significant, thus we can infer that there are no
systematic linkages between trade liberalization and real wages in the informal
segment of Pakistan’s manufacturing sector.</p><p><bold>Table 5. </bold>OLS Regression
Results for Models Examining Impact of Trade Liberalization on Wages</p><table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">  </th><th> <p><bold>Model 1</bold></p> </th><th rowspan="2"> <p><bold>Model 2</bold></p> <p><bold>Informal Workers Sample</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>Full Sample</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>Coefficient</p> </td><td> <p>Coefficient</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Age</p> </td><td> <p>0.045***</p> </td><td> <p>0.059***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.002)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.003)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Age
  Squared</p> </td><td> <p>-0.0005***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.0006***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.00002)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.00003)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Male</p> </td><td> <p>0.757***</p> </td><td> <p>0.883***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.015)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.017)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Married</p> </td><td> <p>0.017***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.017</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.009)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.013)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Widow/
  Divorced</p> </td><td> <p>-0.060***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.067**</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.023)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.032)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Middle</p> </td><td> <p>0.102***</p> </td><td> <p>0.111***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.007)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.011)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Secondary</p> </td><td> <p>0.210***</p> </td><td> <p>0.159***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.007)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.012)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Degree
  &amp; above</p> </td><td> <p>0.855***</p> </td><td> <p>0.437***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.018)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.053)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Technical
  training</p> </td><td> <p>0.096***</p> </td><td> <p>0.098***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.009)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.013)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Informal
  employment</p> </td><td> <p>-0.190***</p> </td><td> <p>-</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.007)</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Output
  tariff</p> </td><td> <p>0.002</p> </td><td> <p>-0.0003</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.002)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.003)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Input
  tariff</p> </td><td> <p>-0.005**</p> </td><td> <p>0.004**</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.003)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.006)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  1</p> </td><td> <p>-0.111***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.097***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.021)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.035)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  2</p> </td><td> <p>-0.074***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.101***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.014)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.020)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  3</p> </td><td> <p>-0.003</p> </td><td> <p>-0.036</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.022)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.027)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  4</p> </td><td> <p>-0.035</p> </td><td> <p>-0.093***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.022)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.035)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  5</p> </td><td> <p>0.067***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.041</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.021)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.039)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  6</p> </td><td> <p>-0.068***</p> </td><td> <p>-0.066**</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.020)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.032)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  7</p> </td><td> <p>0.153***</p> </td><td> <p>0.009</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.033)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.052)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Industry
  8</p> </td><td> <p>0.025</p> </td><td> <p>-0.102***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>0.019</p> </td><td> <p>0.030</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Province
  x time dummies</p> </td><td> <p>Yes</p> </td><td> <p>Yes</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Constant</p> </td><td> <p>10.327***</p> </td><td> <p>9.803***</p> </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <p>(0.101)</p> </td><td> <p>(0.133)</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>R-Squared</p> </td><td> <p>0.3763</p> </td><td> <p>0.3196</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Number
  of observations</p> </td><td> <p>58,003</p> </td><td> <p>25,896</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>***, **, * significant at 1 %,
5 % and 10 % respectively.</p><p>Overall, our results only provide confirmation of
inverse relationship between trade liberalization and real wages through the
impact of tariffs on intermediate goods. This implies that access of firms to
cheaper and better-quality imported inputs helps in increasing productivity, which
leads to increase in real wages. However, in case of workers employed in
informal segments of the different two-digit industries, no increase in real
wages is observed. This may be attributable to the fact that firms working in
informal activities do not make use of higher quality imported inputs and raw
materials and prefer to rely on cheaper locally available inputs.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
<p>The present study analyzed the impact of trade liberation reforms carried out in Pakistan over the period 1994-2015 on wages in the country’s manufacturing sector. The study employed micro level data on employment at the two-digit PSIC industry level from 14 rounds of the Pakistan Labour Force Survey combined with macro level data on two types of tariffs, including tariff on final products and tariff on intermediate goods/ raw materials. For the empirical analysis the study used OLS technique.</p><p>Firstly, a simple linear regression is used to find the important determinants of real wages of workers in Pakistan’s manufacturing sector during the period under review. In the second stage, tariffs on final goods and those on intermediate goods are included in the regression framework, to ascertain the effect of trade reforms on wages of workers in the manufacturing sector. The results show that a fall in input tariffs positively impacts wages of manufacturing workers.</p><p>The results further indicate that real wages of workers employed in food, beverages&amp; tobacco, textiles, apparel&amp; leather and non-metallic mineral industries have declined over the twenty years period of trade reforms implemented in Pakistan.  On the other hand, real wages are observed to have increased in the chemical &amp; petroleum and basic metals industries. The four industries that experienced fall in real wages, on average, accounted for slightly under three-fourths of total employment in the country’s manufacturing sector over the twenty-year period reviewed.</p><p>Contrary to a priroi expectations, the analysis was unable to uncover a systematic relationship between trade liberalization and real wages of workers employed in Pakistan’s large and growing informal sector. The real earnings of informal workers in all the two-digit PSIC industries are observed to have declined during this period of trade reforms, except for workers employed in the basic metal industry.  The lack of any well-defined relationship output and input tariffs on real wages of informal sector workers can be attributable to the fact that goods manufactured by firms in the informal sector are not close substitutes of imported goods and that the production of these goods does not involve use of imported inputs and raw materials.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Policy Implications</title>
<p>This study’s main finding indicates that productivity improvements in the country’s manufacturing sector have been driven by use of higher quality imported inputs and raw materials due to a fall in tariffs on intermediate inputs. In view of this finding, the Government should revise the country’s tariff structure to make it more cascading, i.e., there should be lower tariffs on raw materials and other low value-added imports and proportionately higher tariffs with each stage of value addition. This will ensure that the manufacturing industries continue to have access to cheaper imported inputs, while direct competition from imported finished goods is kept at a reasonable level to promote the sector’s future growth and development prospects.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/1d6WTZb5N9.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Amiti">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Amiti, M., &amp; Cameron, L</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Trade liberalisation and the wage skill premium: Evidence from Indonesia</article-title>
    <source>Journal of International Economics</source>
    <volume>87</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>277</fpage>
    <lpage>287</lpage>
    Amiti, M., &amp; Cameron, L. (2012). Trade liberalisation and the wage skill premium: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of International Economics, 87(1), 277-287.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Berndt">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Berndt, E</person-group>
    <year>1991</year>
    <article-title>. Analyzing determinants of wages and measuring wage discrimination: Dummy variables in regression models</article-title>
    <source>Practice of econometrics: classic and contemporary. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company</source>
    <page-range>ractice</page-range>
    Berndt, E. (1991). Analyzing determinants of wages and measuring wage discrimination: Dummy variables in regression models. Practice of econometrics: classic and contemporary. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Becker">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Becker, G. S</person-group>
    <year>1962</year>
    <source>Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis, Journal of Political Economy</source>
    <volume>70</volume>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <fpage>9</fpage>
    Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis, Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9- 49.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Busse">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Busse, M. &amp; Koniger, J</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Trade and Economic Growth: A Re-examination of the Empirical Evidence</article-title>
    <source>Hamburg Institute of International Economics Research Paper</source>
    <page-range>aper</page-range>
    Busse, M. &amp; Koniger, J. (2012). Trade and Economic Growth: A Re-examination of the Empirical Evidence. Hamburg Institute of International Economics Research Paper 123, Hamburg.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Feliciano">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <article-title>Feliciano, Z</article-title>
    <source>( 2001). Workers and Trade Liberalization: The Impact of Trade Reforms in Mexico onWages and Employment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review</source>
    <volume>55</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>95</fpage>
    <lpage>115</lpage>
    Feliciano, Z. ( 2001). Workers and Trade Liberalization: The Impact of Trade Reforms in Mexico onWages and Employment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 95-115.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Feenstra">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Feenstra, R.C</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <source>Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press</source>
    <page-range>rinceton</page-range>
    Feenstra, R.C. (2004). Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Galiani">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Galiani, S. &amp; Porto, G</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <source>Trends in Tariff Reforms and in the Structure of Wages, The Review of Economics and Statistics</source>
    <volume>92</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>482</fpage>
    <lpage>494</lpage>
    Galiani, S. &amp; Porto, G. (2010).Trends in Tariff Reforms and in the Structure of Wages, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92 (3), 482-494.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Goldberg">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Goldberg, P. &amp; N. Pavcnik</person-group>
    <year>2003</year>
    <article-title>. The Response of the Informal Sector to Trade Liberalization</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Development Economics</source>
    <volume>72</volume>
    <fpage>463</fpage>
    <lpage>496</lpage>
    Goldberg, P. &amp; N. Pavcnik, (2003). The Response of the Informal Sector to Trade Liberalization. Journal of Development Economics, 72, 463-496.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hanson">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hanson, G., &amp; Harrison, A</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <article-title>. Trade liberalization and wage inequality in Mexico</article-title>
    <source>Industrial and Labor Relations Review</source>
    Hanson, G., &amp; Harrison, A. (1999). Trade liberalization and wage inequality in Mexico. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52, 272- 288.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Harrison">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Harrison, A</person-group>
    <year>1994</year>
    <article-title>. Productivity, Imperfect Competition and Trade Reform</article-title>
    <source>Journal of International Economics</source>
    <volume>36</volume>
    <fpage>53</fpage>
    <lpage>73</lpage>
    Harrison, A. (1994). Productivity, Imperfect Competition and Trade Reform. Journal of International Economics, 36, 53-73.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hoekman">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hoekman, B., &amp; Javorcik. B.S</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Policies Facilitating Firm Adjustment to Globalization</article-title>
    <source>Oxford Review of Economic Policy</source>
    <volume>20</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>457</fpage>
    <lpage>473</lpage>
    Hoekman, B., &amp; Javorcik. B.S. (2004). Policies Facilitating Firm Adjustment to Globalization. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(3), 457-473.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Jayanthakumaran">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Jayanthakumaran, K., Piyapong, S., &amp; O&apos;Brien, M</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Trade liberalisation and manufacturing wage premiums: Evidence from Thailand</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Asian Economics</source>
    <volume>29</volume>
    <fpage>15</fpage>
    <lpage>23</lpage>
    Jayanthakumaran, K., Piyapong, S., &amp; O&apos;Brien, M. (2013). Trade liberalisation and manufacturing wage premiums: Evidence from Thailand. ,Journal of Asian Economics, 29, 15-23.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Krueger">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Krueger, A.B., &amp; Summers, L.H</person-group>
    <year>1988</year>
    <article-title>. Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure</article-title>
    <source>Econometrica</source>
    <volume>56</volume>
    <fpage>259</fpage>
    <lpage>293</lpage>
    Krueger, A.B., &amp; Summers, L.H. (1988). Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure. Econometrica, 56, 259-293.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kumar">
  <label>16</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kumar, U., &amp; Mishra, P</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Trade liberalization and wage inequality: Evidence from India</article-title>
    <source>Review of Development Economics</source>
    <volume>12</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>291</fpage>
    <lpage>311</lpage>
    Kumar, U., &amp; Mishra, P. (2007). Trade liberalization and wage inequality: Evidence from India. Review of Development Economics, 12(2), 291-311.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Liaqat">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Liaqat, Z</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Trade liberalization, competition and productivity growth - new evidence from Pakistani manufacturing firms</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Global Economy</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <fpage>219</fpage>
    <lpage>246</lpage>
    Liaqat, Z. (2013). Trade liberalization, competition and productivity growth - new evidence from Pakistani manufacturing firms. .Journal of Global Economy, 9, 219-246.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Mincer">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Mincer, J</person-group>
    <year>1958</year>
    <article-title>. Investment in human capital and personal income distribution</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
    <volume>66</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>281</fpage>
    <lpage>302</lpage>
    Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. Journal of Political Economy, 66(4), 281-302.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Pavcnik">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Pavcnik, N., A. Blom, P. Goldberg &amp; N. Schady</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Trade Liberalization and Industry WageStructure: Evidence from Brazil</article-title>
    <source>World Bank Economic Review</source>
    <volume>18</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>319</fpage>
    <lpage>344</lpage>
    Pavcnik, N., A. Blom, P. Goldberg &amp; N. Schady. (2004). Trade Liberalization and Industry WageStructure: Evidence from Brazil. World Bank Economic Review, 18(3), 319-344.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Pursell">
  <label>20</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Pursell, G., Khan, A., &amp; Gulzar, S</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. Pakistan&apos;s trade policies: FutureDirections</article-title>
    <source>International Growth Centre</source>
    <page-range>ursell</page-range>
    Pursell, G., Khan, A., &amp; Gulzar, S. (2011). Pakistan&apos;s trade policies: FutureDirections. International Growth Centre.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Revenga">
  <label>21</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Revenga, A</person-group>
    <year>1997</year>
    <article-title>. Employment and Wage Effects of Trade Liberalization: The Case of Mexican Manufacturing</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Labor Economics</source>
    Revenga, A.. (1997). Employment and Wage Effects of Trade Liberalization: The Case of Mexican Manufacturing. Journal of Labor Economics 15, 520-543.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Robertson">
  <label>22</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Robertson, R</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Relative Prices and Wage Inequality: Evidence from Mexico</article-title>
    <source>Journal of International Economics</source>
    <volume>64</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>387</fpage>
    <lpage>409</lpage>
    Robertson, R. (2005). Relative Prices and Wage Inequality: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of International Economics, 64(2), 387-409.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sarwar">
  <label>23</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sarwar, A</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <article-title>. Is Trade Liberalization Pro-poor in Pakistan: Evidence from the Large Scale Manufacturing</article-title>
    <source>Master&apos;s Thesis, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore</source>
    <page-range>ro-poor</page-range>
    Sarwar, A. (2016). Is Trade Liberalization Pro-poor in Pakistan: Evidence from the Large Scale Manufacturing. Master&apos;s Thesis, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Stolper">
  <label>24</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Stolper, W., &amp; Samuelson, P</person-group>
    <year>1941</year>
    Stolper, W., &amp; Samuelson, P. (1941).
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Trefler">
  <label>25</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Trefler, D</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. The Long and Short of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement</article-title>
    <source>American Economic Review</source>
    Trefler, D. (2004). The Long and Short of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. American Economic Review 94, 870-895.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tybout">
  <label>26</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tybout, J.R., &amp; Westbrook, M.D</person-group>
    <year>1995</year>
    <article-title>. Trade Liberalization and the Dimensions of Efficiency Change in Mexican Manufacturing Industries</article-title>
    <source>Journal of International Economics</source>
    <volume>39</volume>
    <fpage>53</fpage>
    <lpage>78</lpage>
    Tybout, J.R., &amp; Westbrook, M.D. (1995). Trade Liberalization and the Dimensions of Efficiency Change in Mexican Manufacturing Industries. Journal of International Economics, 39, 53-78.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>