Economic Research and Perspectives

Economic Research and Perspectives

The Impact of Institutional Quality on Iran’s Foreign Trade: Evidence from 1996–2020

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Azadeh Khorrami Moghadam 1
Seyed Morteza Afghah 2
Hassan Farazmand 3
Hamidreza Alipour 4
1 PhD Candidate in Economics, Department of Economics , Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Azad University of Rasht, Rasht, Iran
10.48311/ecor.2026.28399
Abstract
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of institutional quality on Iran’s foreign trade using the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). To this end, an econometric model based on the gravity framework is applied to the period 1996–2020. In principle, a high-quality institutional system— characterized by factors such as a strict rule of law and political stability—is expected to reduce transaction costs, enhance trust, and thereby promote foreign trade.
However, the findings reveal that institutional quality in Iran has exerted a negative and statistically significant effect on the country’s trade volume. This result contrasts with the dominant theoretical literature, which emphasizes a positive relationship between institutional quality and foreign trade. Further analysis suggests that this unexpected outcome reflects Iran’s specific economic and geopolitical circumstances. Owing to international sanctions, Iran has been compelled to redirect its trade toward partners that are less sensitive to institutional indicators. Consequently, even amid declining domestic institutional quality, trade with these partners has expanded.
An examination of Iran’s trade pattern supports this interpretation. The share of industrialized countries with strong institutional frameworks—such as Germany, Japan, and France—has declined, while the share of countries such as China, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Turkey has increased. This atypical trade structure explains the model’s results. The contrast becomes more pronounced when compared with China, which, despite facing institutional challenges, has evolved into a “successful developmental state.” By contrast, Iran has neither developed robust governance indicators nor established itself as a developmental state.
Therefore, the negative coefficient obtained in the model does not imply the irrelevance of institutional quality. Rather, it indicates that under conditions of sanctions and political isolation, Iran’s foreign trade has been dominated by external constraints and compounded by inefficiencies in domestic governance structures.
Purpose/Aims:
This study examines the impact of institutional quality on Iran’s foreign trade using the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). While economic theory posits that strong institutions—such as the rule of law and political stability—reduce transaction costs and facilitate trade, this research identifies a contrasting outcome in the case of Iran. Although previous studies emphasize the positive role of institutional quality in reducing policy uncertainty and fostering economic growth, its specific effect on Iran’s foreign trade remains insufficiently explored, particularly given the country’s marginal share in global trade. This paper seeks to address this gap.
Methodology & Framework:
The analysis employs a gravity model estimated using the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) technique for the period 1996–2020. This method enables robust estimation of trade flows while appropriately accounting for zero trade observations and heteroskedasticity.
Findings:
The results indicate a statistically significant and negative relationship between Iran’s institutional quality and its foreign trade volume. This finding suggests that improvements in institutional quality have been associated with a reduction in Iran’s trade volume over the period under study. The estimated negative coefficient represents a clear departure from conventional theoretical expectations regarding the role of institutions in promoting trade.
Discussion:
This counterintuitive result can be attributed to Iran’s distinctive geopolitical and economic context. International sanctions have compelled Iran to reorient its trade toward partners that are less sensitive to institutional indicators. Consequently, Iran’s trade with industrialized countries characterized by strong institutional frameworks—such as Germany, Japan, and France—has declined, while trade with countries such as China, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey has expanded.
The findings also underscore a notable contrast with China, which, despite institutional shortcomings, has successfully adopted a “developmental state” model and emerged as a major global trading power. Iran, by contrast, has neither established a coherent developmental state nor effectively addressed persistent governance weaknesses. These internal deficiencies, combined with external sanctions, have constrained Iran’s foreign trade performance. Importantly, the negative coefficient does not imply that institutional quality is unimportant; rather, it indicates that its potential positive effects have been outweighed by external constraints and domestic inefficiencies.
Conclusion & Implications:
The study underscores that enhancing Iran’s foreign trade performance and achieving deeper integration into the global economy require both the easing of international sanctions and comprehensive institutional reforms. Without simultaneously addressing these interrelated internal and external challenges, Iran’s foreign trade is likely to remain limited and structurally vulnerable.
Keywords
Foreign Trade
Gravity Model
Institutional Quality
Subjects
References
Abreo, C., Bustillo, R., & Rodriguez, C. (2021). The role of institutional quality in the international trade of a Latin American country: Evidence from Colombian export performance. Journal of Economic Structures, 10(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-021-00253-5
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401.
Alcala, F & ,.Ciccone, A. (2004). Trade and productivity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(2), 613-646.
Alvarez, I. C., Barbero, J., Rodríguez-Pose, A,. & Zofío, J. L. (2018). Does institutional quality matter for trade? Institutional conditions in a sectoral trade framework. World Development, 103, 72-87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.010
Anderson, J., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade: An empirical investigation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 342-352.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317411587
Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
Berden, K., Bergstrand, J. H., & van Etten, E. (2014). Governance and globalisation. World Economy, 37(3), 353-386.
Bergstrand, J. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: Some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 474-481. 
Bilgin, M. H., Gozgor, G., & Demir, E. (2018). The determinants of Turkey’s exports to Islamic countries: The impact of political risks. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 27(5), 486-503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2017.1396489
Chang, C. (2022). The impact of quality of institutions on firm performance: A global analysis. International Review of Economics and Finance, October, 694-716.
Chong, A., & Calderon, C. (2000). Causality and feedback between institutional measures and economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 69-81.
Chowdhury, F., & Audretsch, D. (2014). Institution as looting apparatus: Impact of gender equality and institutions on female entrepreneurship. Eurasian Business Review, 4, 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-014-0008-7
Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2002). Institutions, Trade and Growth. The World Bank, Mimeo.
Francois, J., & Manchin, M. (2013). Institutions, infrastructure, and trade. World Development, 46, 165-175.
Gani, A., & Scrimgeour, F. (2016). New Zealand’s trade with Asia and the role of good governance. International Review of Economics & Finance, 42, 36-53. 
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
Gudarzi, M., & Derakhshande, H. (2015). A study on the role of the Chinese government in the country's development. Political Science Quarterly, 11(33), 121-144. [In Persian]
Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83-116.
Haddad, G. (2023, March 9). Wandering foreign policy. Tejarat-e-Farda. [In Persian]Hutao, Y. (2018). China’s image from the perspective of the developmental state: What kind of “developmental state” is China?. Journal of Contemporary International Relations, 6(1). 95-117.
Islamic Parliament Research Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (2022). An Analysis of the Performance of the Foreign Sector of the Economy in 2020. [In Persian]
Jalilian, H., Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (2007). The impact of regulation on economic growth in developing countries: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 35(1), 87-103.
Karam, F., & Zaki, C. (2016). Why can’t MENA countries trade more?. African Growth & Development Policy, November, 1-37.
Latifi, J., Shirkhani, E., Sayeh Miri, A., Seifi, F., & Zarei, V. (2020). Examining the role of institutional quality in moderating the effects of economic policy uncertainty on Iran's economic growth. Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 20(1), 1-16. [In Persian]
Lio, M. C., & Hu, J. L. (2009). Governance and agricultural production efficiency: A cross-country aggregate frontier analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(1), 40-61.
Lio, M., & Liu, M. C. (2008). Governance and agricultural productivity: A cross national analysis. Food Policy, 33(6), 504-512.
Li, S., & Samsell, D. (2009). Why some countries trade more than others: The effect of the governance environment on trade flows. Corporate Governance
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00715.x
Linders, G.-J., Slangen, A., de Groot, H. L. F., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2005). Cultural and institutional determinants of bilateral trade flows. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.775504
Martincus, C., & Gallo, A. (2009). Institutions and export specialization: Just direct effects?. Wiley Blackwell, 62, 129-149.
Méon, P. G., & Weill, L. (2005). Does better governance foster efficiency? An aggregate frontier analysis. Economics of Governance, 6, 75-90.
Méon, P.-G., & Sekkat, K. (2004). Does the quality of institutions limit the MENA’s integration in the world economy?. The World Economy, 27(9), 1475-1498. 
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Translated by M. Moeini. Tehran: Management and Planning Organization of Iran. [In Persian]
North, D. C., Mantazavinos, C., & Shariq, S. (2004). Learning, institutions, and economic performance. Perspective on Politics, 2(1), 75-84.
Page, J., & Van Gelder, L. (2001). Missing links: Institutional capability, policy reform and growth in the Middle East and North Africa. In H. Hakimian & Z. Moshaver (Eds.), The State and Global Change: The Political Economy of Transition in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. xx-xx). Routledge.
Poyhonen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the flows of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90, 93-100.
Rodrik, D. (2000). Trade Policy Reform as Institutional Reform. Manuscript, Harvard University
Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2002). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. Manuscript, Harvard University.
Silva, J. M. C. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641
Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. Twentieth Century. Fund. 
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16826.
Wu, J., Li, S., & Samsell, D. (2012). Why some countries trade more, some trade less, some trade almost nothing: The effect of the governance environment on trade flows. International Business Review, 21(2), 225-238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.02.007
Yu, S., Beugelsdijk, S., & de Haan, J. (2015). Trade, trust and the rule of law. European Journal of Political Economy, 37, 102-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.11.003
World Bank. (n.d.). World Bank, Data Bank. http://www.databank.worldbank.org
World Trade Statistical Review (2023). https://www.wto.org
Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration. (n.d.). https://www.irica.ir
Chall. Sustain., 3(3), 177-185.
https://doi.org/10.56578/ocs030304