{"help": "https://data.iadb.org/api/3/action/help_show?name=datastore_search", "success": true, "result": {"include_total": false, "limit": 100, "records_format": "objects", "resource_id": "0b88ce52-9138-4088-9a5d-9b2a3fa54b1c", "total_estimation_threshold": null, "last_id_operator": "gt", "records": [{"_id":1,"id":"tintit_15522","title":"Evaluating aid for trade: A survey of recent studies","authors":"Cadot, O.; Fernandes, A.; Gourdon, J.; Mattoo, A.; de Melo, J.","publication_year":2014,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84898624202?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1111/twec.12138","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"World Economy","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"No","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"The demand for accountability in 'Aid-for-Trade' (AFT) is increasing but monitoring has focused on case studies and impressionistic narratives. The paper reviews recent evidence from a wide range of studies, recognising that a multiplicity of approaches is needed to learn what works and what does not. The review concludes that there is some support for the emphasis on reducing trade costs through investments in hard infrastructure (like ports and roads) and soft infrastructure (like customs). But failure to implement complementary reform - especially the introduction of competition in transport services - may erode the benefits of these investments. Direct support to exporters does seem to lead to diversification across products and destinations, but it is not yet clear that these benefits are durable. In general, it is difficult to rely on cross-country studies to direct AFT. More rigorous impact evaluation is an under-utilised alternative, but situations of 'clinical interventions' in trade are rare and adverse incentives (due to agency problems) and costs (due to the small size of project) are a hurdle in implementation. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"export_promotion_policies","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":"border_management_infrastructure","intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"extensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"travel_time_costs","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr | did_fe | matching | iv","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":"Cost information","unit_observation":"Firm/organisation | Country | Sector","timeframe":"0-1 | 1-2 | 2-5 | 5-10 | >10","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Institutional capacity","mechanism":"Infrastructure investments reduce trade costs by improving port and road quality | Competition in transport services amplifies or erodes benefits of infrastructure investments | Direct export promotion fosters firm-level diversification across products and destinations","evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Not Specified","outcome4_effectiveness":"Not available","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":2,"id":"tintit_19208","title":"Exploring Tourism's Contribution to Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030: Aligning with UN SDG 8 for Sustainable Growth","authors":"Iqbal, T.; Aftab, F.","publication_year":2025,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105002048896?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.18280/ijsdp.200333","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning","journal_rank":"Q3","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"This research explores how tourism contributes to successfully implementing the Saudi Arabia Vision 2030, mainly in terms of resilience and correlation with the sustainable development goal (SDG) 8. This paper adopts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology to examine efforts to promote tourism in support of KSA Vision 2030 and its compliance with SDG 8. Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were the primary databases from which relevant articles were retrieved. Ten studies were finally considered eligible for the review. It is evident that the tourism industry accounts for a large percentage of the GDP reports, which highlight that tourism accounted for approximately 9% of Saudi Arabia’s GDP in 2018, equating to $65 billion. Nevertheless, there are regulatory and ecological constraints. Outcomes reveal the importance of sustainable tourism as implemented in the Al-Ula and The Red Sea projects. In addition, community engagement and digital touchpoints, such as interactive screens, digital signage, and kiosks that enhance visitor interaction, stand out as successful strategies for the future of tourism experiences. It compares findings with extant research, providing practical strategies to ensure sustainable tourism development supports Vision 2030 and global SDGs. However, it is essential to note the limitations of this study, including the small sample size of reviewed articles, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Therefore, this research has suggested the need to adopt strategic leadership, incorporate all stakeholders into the practices, and realize the value of technology in enhancing Saudi Arabia's tourism destination status. ©2025 The authors.","region":"Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan","country":"Saudi Arabia","income_level":"High income","evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_investment_assets","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"environmental_quality_emissions","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"user_satisfaction","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Digital transformation | Institutional capacity","mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":3,"id":"tintit_19244","title":"PRESERVING INTANGIBLE HERITAGE THROUGH SUSTAINABLE ETHNIC TOURISM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF KOSOVO'S APPROACH","authors":"Domniku, M.; Kacamakovic, M.K.","publication_year":2025,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105028435427?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.30892/gtg.634spl04-1619","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"This study aims to investigate the role of ethnic tourism in preserving Kosovo's intangible cultural heritage while also examining its socioeconomic benefits and challenges. These goals include examining how it affects cultural revitalization, community livelihoods, and sustainable development. For materials and methods, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) using peer-reviewed articles, reports, and case studies sourced from Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus, focusing on works published from 2015 onward. We specifically selected and analyzed empirical studies that delve into ethnic tourism, the preservation of cultural heritage, and sustainable practices in Kosovo. The findings show that ethnic tourism plays a significant role in protecting intangible heritage by encouraging traditional customs, local languages, music, dance, storytelling, and fostering intercultural dialogue among ethnic communities. The promotion of cultural events, traditional cuisine, and artisan crafts not only strengthens identity, but also attracts visitors interested in authentic experiences. Notable benefits include economic diversification, local employment opportunities, the revitalization of rural areas, and infrastructure improvements. However, the study also identifies major challenges, such as the risk of cultural commodification, loss of authenticity, over-commercialization, lack of institutional support, and uneven distribution of tourism income among communities. Additionally, weak heritage management strategies and political instability can hinder the long-term effectiveness of tourism initiatives. Sustainable governance, inclusive policies, and community-based tourism models are essential to strike a balance between preservation and growth. Greater cooperation among policymakers, local actors, and heritage experts is needed to safeguard cultural values while advancing economic development. In conclusion, when ethnic tourism is managed inclusively and ethically, it can serve as a powerful tool for maintaining Kosovo's cultural identity, promoting reconciliation and fostering resilience in post-conflict societies. © 2025, Editura Universitatii din Oradea. All rights reserved.","region":"Europe & Central Asia","country":"Kosovo","income_level":"Upper middle income","evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_investment_assets","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"environmental_quality_emissions","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Not specified","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":4,"id":"tintit_19325","title":"Evaluating the Impact of Policies on Inclusive Ecotourism for People with Disabilities: Accessibility, Community Awareness, Environmental Health, and Sustainability—A Systematic Review","authors":"La Patilaiya, H.; Probandari, A.N.","publication_year":2026,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105032402884?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.56578/ijei090103","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"International Journal of Environmental Impacts","journal_rank":"Q3","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Inclusive ecotourism promotes equal access, community participation, and environmental conservation, thereby generating both social and economic benefits. Although scholarly interest in inclusive ecotourism has increased, empirical research examining how specific policy frameworks address the needs of people with disabilities remains limited. This study presents a systematic review of the existing literature to evaluate the extent to which ecotourism policies enhance accessibility, foster community awareness, and support environmental sustainability. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases. Of the 1,215 records identified, only seven studies met the inclusion criteria, indicating that research in this area is still at an early stage of development. The review highlights several key policy strategies, including the provision of accessible infrastructure, stakeholder engagement, and the integration of sustainability-oriented practices. However, the findings also reveal persistent challenges, such as weak policy enforcement, limited intersectoral collaboration, and gaps in physical infrastructure. By synthesizing insights related to accessibility, community awareness, and environmental policy, this study provides an integrated perspective to inform the development of more inclusive and sustainable ecotourism initiatives. It underscores the need for stronger cross-sector collaboration to address existing policy shortcomings and to promote tourism systems that equitably benefit all visitors, including individuals with disabilities. © 2026 by the author(s). Licensee Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article can be downloaded for free, and reused and quoted with a citation of the original published version, under the CC BY 4.0 license.","region":"Europe & Central Asia | East Asia & Pacific","country":"Italy | Hungary | Türkiye | Indonesia","income_level":"High income | Upper middle income","evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_investment_assets","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"service_quality","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":null,"outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Institutional capacity","mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":null,"outcome3_effectiveness":null,"outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":5,"id":"tintit_19367","title":"Exploring the nexus of smart technologies and sustainable ecotourism: A systematic review","authors":"Zhang, Y.; Deng, B.","publication_year":2024,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85194411493?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31996","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Heliyon","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Sustainable smart ecotourism, utilizing smart technologies like smartphones, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT), aims to minimize harm to natural and cultural ecosystems, promoting education and environmental conservation. This review aims to examine the concept of sustainable smart ecotourism, analyzing existing literature to gain insights into the significance, components, challenges, and contributions to sustainable development on a global scale. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate sustainable smart ecotourism using PRISMA guidelines. The review focused on scholarly, peer-reviewed studies from developing countries, using databases like ScienceDirect, Jstor, Taylor & Francis, and IEEE. The study used Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools to assess study quality. Thematic analysis techniques were used to extract and synthesize data, identifying patterns and trends relevant to smart ecotourism sustainability. Dual analyst verification ensured data integrity and reliability. After conducting a thorough quality evaluation using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, we identified 29 studies of exceptional quality from an original pool of 9583 records. The use of thematic analysis sheds light on the diverse and important role of the IoT in promoting sustainable ecotourism. This study uncovered both the obstacles and possibilities associated with this technology. The findings provide important insights into the worldwide implementation of smart ecotourism techniques and highlight the significant impact of technology in promoting sustainable tourism models. Smart ecotourism involves multiple stakeholders to enhance environmental impact. Key characteristics include dynamic interactions, co-creation of value, sustainable development, resource sharing, and innovation services. Technology like IoT is crucial for sustainable tourism management. Collaboration with governments, local stakeholders, and organizations is recommended for sustainable policies. As a result of this study, sustainable ecotourism policies result from a collaborative effort between local communities, government agencies, and practitioners in the industry. Smart technologies, including AR/VR and AI, have the potential to enhance operational efficiency while reducing environmental concerns. Ecotourism, partnerships, and education are key to successful implementation and capacity building. © 2024 The Authors","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_investment_assets","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"environmental_quality_emissions","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"technology_adoption_digitization","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Digital transformation | Institutional capacity","mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":6,"id":"tintit_19385","title":"The Evolution of Innovative Marketing and Branding in Tourism: A Systematic Review of Entrepreneurial Challenges and Strategic Trends","authors":"Jansom, A.; Yang, C.-H.","publication_year":2025,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105033678168?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.18421/TEM143-77","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"TEM Journal","journal_rank":"Q3","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"This paper evaluates the impact of innovative destination marketing and branding strategies on the business performance of tourism entrepreneurs based on the analysis of previous studies. By using a systematic review method, this study analyzes English-language articles published from 2005 to 2024 on the Web of Science to explore these strategies from an entrepreneurial perspective. The research questions were formulated using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) framework. Only high-quality journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were included. The findings reveal that adopting open innovation frameworks and big data analytics significantly enhances the competitive strategies of tourism small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), enabling them to maintain market relevance in a fast-changing industry. Furthermore, the study illustrates the progression of marketing strategies from “image” marketing to “technological innovation” over time. Key challenges are identified, including aligning branding with consumer expectations and integrating new technologies. These insights are essential for destination marketing organizations, marketers, and brand developers aiming to leverage innovation to boost business performance in tourism. © 2025 Akawut Jansom & Chia-Han Yang","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_firm_competitiveness","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"productivity_competitiveness","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"technology_adoption_digitization","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Firm/organisation","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Skills | Digital transformation","mechanism":"Social media usage and business planning mediate the link between innovation practices and SME performance | Gamification enhances customer engagement, driving brand awareness and loyalty | ICT adoption combined with customer orientation improves financial performance of tourism enterprises","evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":7,"id":"tintit_19419","title":"The role of blockchain for trade in global value chains: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research","authors":"Böhmecke-Schwafert, M.","publication_year":2024,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85200645036?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102835","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Telecommunications Policy","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Blockchain technology has received increasing attention from academia, practitioners, and policymakers alike for its potential to disrupt business processes and structures of trade in global value chains (GVC). Amidst the ongoing digitization of economies and societies, blockchain holds promise for addressing unresolved challenges. However, current research on this topic primarily consists of either abstract conceptual work or case studies. To bridge this gap, our study conducts a systematic literature review, aiming to comprehensively explore and structure the realm of blockchain and its impact on international trade. Key research questions explored include: What role do blockchain innovations play in facilitating trade within GVC? Additionally, what are the primary barriers hindering the adoption of blockchain innovations in trade within GVC? Our main contribution lies in categorizing these applications into five distinct categories: Trade Documents; Trade Finance; Trusted Real-Time Information Sharing; Provenance; and Sustainable GVC. Contrary to portraying blockchain innovations as a panacea or universal solution, our findings highlight the technologies’ potential rather as a core technological infrastructure when integrated with complementary technologies such as the Internet of Things. Moreover, we identify 11 significant barriers to blockchain adoption in international trade, underscoring the need for concerted efforts to address them. From these insights, we derive implications for policymakers and practitioners, and propose avenues for future interdisciplinary research. © 2024 The Author","region":null,"country":null,"income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"digitalization_customs","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"digital_trade_regulation","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"travel_time_costs","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"technology_adoption_digitization","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":null,"outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Digital transformation","mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":null,"outcome3_effectiveness":null,"outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":8,"id":"tintit_19607","title":"The international trade impacts of Geographical Indications: Hype or hope?","authors":"De Filippis, F.; Giua, M.; Salvatici, L.; Vaquero-Piñeiro, C.","publication_year":2022,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85140083758?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102371","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Food Policy","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"The European Geographical Indication quality scheme (GI) is supposed to enhance local expertise and support spatially-embedded products worldwide. Currently, the effect of GIs on trade is controversial. In general, GIs seem to support international trade, but the literature has not reached a consensus. We aim to identify and summarise heterogeneous results from existing research using a meta-analysis approach. Our results confirm that GIs positively affect trade, even after controlling for the effects of various characteristics of the studies, the methodology adopted, and publication impacts. © 2022 The Authors","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"quality_standards_compliance","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"extensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"prices_inflation","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"meta_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country | Firm/organisation | Product","timeframe":"5-10 | >10","heterogeneity":"Economic sector","tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":9,"id":"tintit_19620","title":"HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES, AND DUBAI AS CASE STUDY: A LITERATURE REVIEW","authors":"Sakka, F.; Ghadi, M.Y.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85154569858?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i4.613","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"International Journal of Professional Business Review","journal_rank":"Not indexed/Other","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Purpose: This article maps the scholarly conversation on two important topics in the field of economic development: human capital and special economic zones. While these have been studied separately, little work is available on their intersection. Design/methodology/approach: The article is a systematic literature review. It followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria. Findings: While human capital development has been largely discussed from the perspective of developed countries, it hasn't been examined specifically in connection to SEZs. Moreover, there is solid evidence of the positive impact of industrial clusters, suggesting that SEZs that pursue the formation of industrial clusters might have the strongest effect on human capital development. The piece argues the intersection of human development and SEZ establishment is currently a gap in the literature calling for further empirical investigation Originality: The literature review is brought to bear on the experience of the Emirate of Dubai, in order to highlight features of its development history that make it an ideal case study for empirical investigation. © 2023 AOS-Estratagia and Inovacao. All Rights Reserved.","region":"Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan","country":"United Arab Emirates","income_level":"High income","evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"investment_incentives_special_regimes","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"skills","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"productivity_competitiveness","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"innovation","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"fdi_outcomes","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Not specified","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Institutional capacity","mechanism":"Knowledge spillover through worker mobility and industrial clusters transfers skills from MNEs to domestic firms | R&D investment by MNEs in SEZs stimulates training and human capital upgrading | Industrial cluster formation fosters competition and collaboration enabling innovation and productivity spillovers","evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":10,"id":"tintit_19632","title":"The impact of trade liberalisation on poverty and inequality: Evidence from CGE models","authors":"Anderson, E.","publication_year":2020,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85097746461?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.05.006","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Journal of Policy Modeling","journal_rank":"Q2","open_access":"No","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"In this paper we carry out a systematic review of the evidence from CGE models regarding the effect of trade liberalisation on income inequality and poverty in developing countries. The evidence suggests quite strongly that trade liberalisation tends to reduce poverty, but is more likely to increase inequality than reduce it; however, the predicted effects are relatively small. Variation in the size and direction of effects can be explained by the choice of outcome measure, the fiscal response to liberalisation, the type of CGE model, and certain country characteristics – but not the method used to link the CGE model to the distribution of income. © 2020 The Society for Policy Modeling","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"inequality_segregation","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"household_welfare_poverty","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":null,"outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"meta_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":null,"outcome3_effectiveness":null,"outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":11,"id":"tintit_19707","title":"Exploring the relationships between heritage tourism, sustainable community development and host communities' health and wellbeing: A systematic review","authors":"Brooks, C.; Waterton, E.; Saul, H.; Renzaho, A.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85151312486?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0282319","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"PLoS ONE","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Previous studies examining the impact of heritage tourism have focused on specific ecological, economic, political, or cultural impacts. Research focused on the extent to which heritage tourism fosters host communities' participation and enhances their capacity to flourish and support long-term health and wellbeing is lacking. This systematic review assessed the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development, as well as the health and wellbeing of local communities. Studies were included if they: (i) were conducted in English; (ii) were published between January 2000 and March 2021; (iii) used qualitative and/or quantitative methods; (iv) analysed the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development and/or the health and wellbeing of local host communities; and (v) had a full-text copy available. The search identified 5292 articles, of which 102 articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies covering six WHO regions (Western Pacific, African, Americas, South-East Asia, European, Eastern Mediterranean, and multiple regions). These studies show that heritage tourism had positive and negative impacts on social determinants of health. Positive impacts included economic gains, rejuvenation of culture, infrastructure development, and improved social services. However, heritage tourism also had deleterious effects on health, such as restrictions placed on local community participation and access to land, loss of livelihood, relocation and/or fragmentation of communities, increased outmigration, increases in crime, and erosion of culture. Thus, while heritage tourism may be a poverty-reducing strategy, its success depends on the inclusion of host communities in heritage tourism governance, decision-making processes, and access to resources and programs. Future policymakers are encouraged to adopt a holistic view of benefits along with detriments to sustainable heritage tourism development. Additional research should consider the health and wellbeing of local community groups engaged in heritage tourism. Protocol PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114681. © 2023 Brooks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_investment_assets","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"household_welfare_poverty","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"inequality_segregation","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"environmental_quality_emissions","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country | Municipality | Area or polygon | Household | Individual | Firm/organisation | Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":"Main","outcome6_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":12,"id":"tintit_19728","title":"Systematic analysis of the essential characteristics of the concept \"economic and technological development zone\"","authors":"Wenjun, L.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85170071058?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1051/e3sconf/202340307033","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"E3S Web of Conferences","journal_rank":"Not indexed/Other","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Based on the empirical data on the development of special economic zones in countries with developed and developing economies, this article illustrates the positive effect of the state regional development policy and confirms the effectiveness of the technology under study. The purpose of this article is to determine the essence of the Economic and Technological Development Zones and to identify their main characteristics. To achieve this goal, a systematic review was chosen as a research method using the meta-analysis method, in accordance with which a selective study of 76 publications included in the free search engine for scientific publications was carried out, within which, according to the selected criteria for the structure of the article, the age of the source, the presence in the keywords of the research object as well as the availability of the results of theoretical and empirical analysis, 26 publications were selected, the meta-analysis of which made it possible to identify the essential properties and characteristics of the category Economic and Technological Development Zone. The main condition for the successful implementation of the Development Zones project is the creation of industrial symbiosis, taking into account the environmental aspect and the adaptation of the Development Zone strategies to the institutional conditions of specific countries and regions. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2023.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"investment_incentives_special_regimes","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"fdi_outcomes","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"fiscal_revenue_tax","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"meta_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Area or polygon | Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":"Institutional capacity","mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":13,"id":"tintit_19747","title":"A Systematic Literature Review of Development Rural Tourism","authors":"Mulyaningsih, T.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85153370541?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.47750/QAS/24.194.05","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Quality - Access to Success","journal_rank":"Q4","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Rural tourism development is increasingly implemented by a lot of countries. By involving the community this kind of tourism is able to improve rural areas economy and earnings of villagers. This paper aims to examine studies on rural tourism clusters with the basis of Community Based Tourism in many countries. It is a systematic literature review whose data collection was carried from Google Scholar and Scopus data base and collecting journal article papers published within 2010-2020. Of that search, 70 articles which have similar themes to the present study were obtained. To process the literature, VOS viewer software was utilized to analyze and visualize the data. Findings showed that there are three big themes of rural tourism study. Upon the three clusters, it is recognizable that studies focusing on rural tourism, rural tourism cluster, and community based tourism have been conducted partially. However, there has been no study that combines two concepts of cluster and community based tourism simultaneously. From the results of the literature review, it was found that the development of rural tourism using a cluster approach or community based tourism has been proven to be successful in improving the rural economy. In addition, studies on rural tourism were mostly done during 2014-2018, while after these periods there was none. According to the findings, gaps in study of the implementation of two approaches, namely cluster and Community Based Tourism are widely open to be studied. © 2023, SRAC - Romanian Society for Quality. All rights reserved.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Other","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":14,"id":"tintit_19885","title":"Food security and trade liberalization of the food market: a systematic review","authors":"Machado, M.V.; de Castro Burbarelli, M.F.; Garcia, R.G.; Binotto, E.; Borges, H.G.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85138586613?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1590/1806-9479.2022.256624","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural","journal_rank":"Q3","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"Portuguese","abstract":"This paper aimed to identify in the international literature on food security the scientific results about the role of trade liberalization in the same. A systematic review was used in the Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2015 to 2019. It was identify 16 studies according the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It was found that the literature on the issues in question remains ambiguous, with no consensus on the real gains or losses. The nature and magnitude of the effect of liberalization on food security depends on several factors, such as: the degree of adaptability of the poor to changes in economic conditions; the degree of exposure of countries to food imports; the presence of favorable initial conditions; accompanying measures; and the time horizon considered in the research © Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) sob a licença Creative Commons Attribution, que permite uso, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, sem restrições desde que o trabalho original seja corretamente citado","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"household_welfare_poverty","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"prices_inflation","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"inequality_segregation","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":15,"id":"tintit_19887","title":"THE FEASIBILITY OF RURAL TOURISM IN FOSTERING REAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN HOST COMMUNITIES","authors":"Wijijayanti, T.; Salleh, N.H.M.; Hashim, N.A.; Mohd Saukani, M.N.; Abu Bakar, N.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85152517726?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.30892/gtg.46137-1031","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Although tourism is identified as a tool for development, it also leads to negative and detrimental impacts. Thus, a survey from the literature point of view is done to ensure that tourism is still available strategy for sustainable rural development.This paper uses four reliable databases, including Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, SAGE Publication, and Emerald Publishing, to look for prior investigations. Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) were employed as past investigations with a qualitative approach, and data were retrieved using the PRISMA protocol. To be a viable development strategy for rural areas, it is crucial to harmonize the local communities’ economies, social structures, cultures, environments, identities, and values. The key fundamental aspects to creating a sustainable rural tourism development model are also identified in this paper.The development of rural tourism is thought to have a significant impact on creating a sustainable socio-economic system. A well-planned and well-executed rural tourism strategy will inevitably lead to sustained rural development. Here, sustainability refers to improved quality of life, a strong economy, and environmental responsibility. © 2023 Editura Universitatii din Oradea. All rights reserved.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"tourism_market_destination","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"visitor_flows_engagement","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"household_welfare_poverty","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":"environmental_quality_emissions","outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":"inequality_segregation","outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Main","outcome4_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":"Main","outcome5_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":"Main","outcome6_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":16,"id":"tintit_19946","title":"Does Economic Diplomacy Work? A Meta-analysis of Its Impact on Trade and Investment","authors":"Moons, S.J.V.; van Bergeijk, P.A.G.","publication_year":2017,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84962429209?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1111/twec.12392","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"World Economy","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"We review the literature on economic diplomacy and provide a meta-analysis of 32 empirical studies published in 1986–2011 that deal with the trade and investment impact of economic diplomacy (embassies, consulates, other diplomatic facilities, investment and export promotion offices, trade and state visits). Controlling for differences in research design, methodology, time frame and manner of data, we find a positive and significant effect of economic diplomacy on international economic flows with the exception of state visits and that this is true in a sample of 627 t-statistics analysed with OLS and for a larger sample of 963 reported significance levels analysed with logit thus illustrating robustness with respect to sample and estimation technique. Our analyses show that reported effects of economic diplomacy on trade and investment in individual studies are sensitive to model specification. The primary studies that investigate only one source country are less likely to report significant positive effects. Compared to other sciences, economic studies are less likely to report significantly positive effects of economic diplomacy. Primary studies lump embassies and consulates (general) into one indicator miss that these instruments differ significantly. Embassies, consulates and agencies should thus be included as separate instruments in future research. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"export_promotion_policies","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":"investment_promotion_facilitation","intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"Yes","outcome1":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"fdi_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":null,"outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"meta_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":null,"outcome3_effectiveness":null,"outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":17,"id":"tintit_19985","title":"Comparative analysis of the impact of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria’s policies on households in attaining sustainable economic growth in the 21st century","authors":"Alghanmi, M.; Amuda, Y.J.","publication_year":2024,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85202915327?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.24294/JIPD.V8I6.3761","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development","journal_rank":"Not indexed/Other","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"The primary objective of this paper is to explore the impact of household policies in both Saudi Arabia and Nigeria towards achieving efficient and sustainable economic growth in the 21st century. Fundamentally, the objective of the study was sparked by the basic factors of comparison the importance of culture in international relations, challenges related to terrorism which impede adequate implementations of economic policies, trade facilitation and logistics to enhance economic growth and cross-border movement of goods and services. Systematic literature review (SLR) and content analysis (CA) were used as methodological approaches of the paper. The articles explored for review were accessed using visualization of similarities (VOS) by exploring different database such as: journals, core collection of Web of Science (WOS), peer review sources and library sources. The findings demonstrated that Saudi Arabia and Nigeria have different policies regarding households in achieving sustainable economic growth. On one hand, in Saudi Arabia, the focus is on the economic burden associated with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and the out-of-pocket spending among individuals diagnosed with these diseases. In addition, the study found that households with older and more educated members, an employed head of household, higher socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and urban residency had significantly higher out-of-pocket expenditure in achieving sustainable economic development. On the other hand, Nigeria’s policy is centered around trade liberalization and its impact on household welfare as an integral part of sustainable economic development. The policies implemented in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria have implications for the well-being of their citizens. In Saudi Arabia, the household policies have significantly impacted the quality of life (QoL) of households, particularly those with low income, large size, male-led, urban, and with elderly heads. In Nigeria, trade liberalization policies have mixed welfare implications for households in the aspects of real income, they also induce unemployment in key sectors, such as agriculture and industry. To mitigate negative effects, it is suggested that Saudi Arabia should effectively address chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) among the households while Nigeria should efficiently pursue trade liberalization on a sectorial basis, focusing on sectors that do not severely undermine household welfare. © 2024 by author(s).","region":"Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan | Sub-Saharan Africa","country":"Saudi Arabia | Nigeria","income_level":"High income | Lower middle income","evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"household_welfare_poverty","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"labor_market_outcomes","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"prices_inflation","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Household","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":18,"id":"tintit_20020","title":"Current Research Trends on Business Internationalization Processes in Latin American Countries from 2010 to 2022","authors":"Cahuana, R.M.V.; Solsol, E.M.P.; Cornejo, S.M.M.; Pozo, R.A.M.; Pizarro, P.A.F.; Morán, C.A.A.; Cuaresma, J.R.M.","publication_year":2023,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85187289976?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.18687/LEIRD2023.1.1.343","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Proceedings of the LACCEI international Multi-conference for Engineering, Education and Technology","journal_rank":"Not indexed/Other","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"Spanish","abstract":"In the era of globalization, companies have witnessed a growing interest in venturing into foreign markets in response to worldwide interconnectedness. This article focuses on comprehensively analyzing the strategies and benefits linked to business internationalization in Latin American countries over the course of the last twelve years. To achieve this purpose, a methodology of systematic literature review is adopted, in line with the PRISMA approach, in order to streamline and enhance the understanding of the outlined objectives. Additionally, the relationship between export promotion and innovation within the context of internationalization processes is examined, highlighting how both variables contribute to the global expansion of organizations. The findings of this research shed light not only on the key aspects of internationalization in Latin America but also on the essential interrelation between export promotion, innovation, and the internationalization process itself. These findings carry crucial implications for companies seeking to excel in the international landscape, offering valuable information for decision-making in an increasingly competitive and globally connected business environment. Ultimately, this study provides insights that can guide companies towards success in their endeavors to expand into foreign markets, enriching the understanding of the dynamics involved in this process within the Latin American context. © 2023 Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions. All rights reserved.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"export_promotion_policies","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"extensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"innovation","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"productivity_competitiveness","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Firm/organisation","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Mixed","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":19,"id":"tintit_20121","title":"Reciprocal trade agreements in gravity models: A meta-analysis","authors":"Cipollina, M.; Salvatici, L.","publication_year":2010,"url_link":"https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/74749084287?origin=resultslist","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9396.2009.00877.x","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":"Review of International Economics","journal_rank":"Q1","open_access":"No","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"The gravity model is a workhorse tool applicable in a wide range of empirical fields. It is regularly used to estimate the impact of reciprocal trade agreements (RTAs) on trade flows between partners. The studies report very different estimates since there is a significant difference in datasets, sample sizes, and independent variables. This paper combines, explains, and summarizes a large number of results using a meta-analysis approach. We provide pooled estimates, obtained from fixed and random effects models of the RTAs' effect size on bilateral trade: the hypothesis that there is no effect of RTAs on trade is robustly rejected at standard significance levels. The information collected on each estimate allows us to test the sensitivity of the results to alternative specifications and differences in the control variables considered, as well as the impact of the publication selection process. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":null,"outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":null,"outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":null,"outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"meta_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Country","timeframe":"Not available","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":null,"evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":null,"outcome2_effectiveness":null,"outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":null,"outcome3_effectiveness":null,"outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":null,"outcome4_effectiveness":null,"outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null},{"_id":20,"id":"tintit_20956","title":"Does Trade Reform Promote Economic Growth? A Review of Recent Evidence","authors":"Douglas A. Irwin","publication_year":2019,"url_link":"https://www.nber.org/papers/w25927","doi":"10.3386/w25927","study_type":"Systematic review","publication_type":null,"journal":null,"journal_rank":"Not indexed/Other","open_access":"Yes","idb_publication":"No","idb_authors":"No","idb_study":"No","language":"English","abstract":"Do trade reforms that significantly reduce import barriers lead to faster economic growth? In the two decades since Rodríguez and Rodrik’s (2000) critical survey of empirical work on this question, new research has tried to overcome the various methodological problems that have plagued previous attempts to provide a convincing answer. This paper examines three strands of recent work on this issue: cross-country regressions focusing on within-country growth, synthetic control methods on specific reform episodes, and empirical country studies looking at the channels through which lower trade barriers may increase productivity. A consistent finding is that trade reforms have a positive impact on economic growth, on average, although the effect is heterogeneous across countries. Overall, these research findings should temper some of the previous agnosticism about the empirical link between trade reform and economic performance.","region":"Multi-region","country":"15+ countries","income_level":null,"evaluated_case":null,"intervention1":"regulatory_institutional_reforms","intervention_subtype1":null,"intervention2":null,"intervention_subtype2":null,"intervention3":null,"intervention_subtype3":null,"intervention4":null,"intervention_subtype4":null,"intervention5":null,"intervention_subtype5":null,"intervention6":null,"intervention_subtype6":null,"intervention7":null,"intervention_subtype7":null,"intervention8":null,"intervention_subtype8":null,"intervention9":null,"intervention_subtype9":null,"intervention10":null,"intervention_subtype10":null,"multicomponent_intervention":"No","outcome1":"income_sales_profits","outcome_subtype1":null,"outcome2":"productivity_competitiveness","outcome_subtype2":null,"outcome3":"intensive_margin_trade","outcome_subtype3":null,"outcome4":"access_better_inputs","outcome_subtype4":null,"outcome5":null,"outcome_subtype5":null,"outcome6":null,"outcome_subtype6":null,"outcome7":null,"outcome_subtype7":null,"outcome8":null,"outcome_subtype8":null,"outcome9":null,"outcome_subtype9":null,"outcome10":null,"outcome_subtype10":null,"evaluation_design":"Systematic review","method":"did_fe | synth | narrative_sr","sr_quality_appraisal":null,"cost_information":null,"unit_observation":"Firm/organisation | Country","timeframe":"2-5 | 5-10 | >10","heterogeneity":null,"tags":null,"mechanism":"Lower tariffs on intermediate inputs increase variety, quality, and availability of inputs for downstream firms | Increased import competition forces domestic firms to reduce costs and improve efficiency | Trade reform raises investment rates, contributing to capital accumulation and growth","evidence_summary":null,"outcome1_type":"Main","outcome1_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome1_metric":null,"outcome2_type":"Main","outcome2_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome2_metric":null,"outcome3_type":"Main","outcome3_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome3_metric":null,"outcome4_type":"Mechanism","outcome4_effectiveness":"Positive","outcome4_metric":null,"outcome5_type":null,"outcome5_effectiveness":null,"outcome5_metric":null,"outcome6_type":null,"outcome6_effectiveness":null,"outcome6_metric":null,"outcome7_type":null,"outcome7_effectiveness":null,"outcome7_metric":null,"outcome8_type":null,"outcome8_effectiveness":null,"outcome8_metric":null,"outcome9_type":null,"outcome9_effectiveness":null,"outcome9_metric":null,"outcome10_type":null,"outcome10_effectiveness":null,"outcome10_metric":null}], "fields": [{"id": "_id", "type": "int"}, {"id": "id", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "ID", "notes": "ID of the study"}}, {"id": "title", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Title", "notes": "Title of the study"}}, {"id": "authors", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Authors", "notes": "Author(s) of the study. Authors are separated by a semicolon, or in some entries by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "publication_year", "type": "int8", "info": {"label": "Publication year", "notes": "Year of publication"}}, {"id": "url_link", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "URL link", "notes": "Link to the study"}}, {"id": "doi", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "DOI", "notes": "Digital Object Identifier"}}, {"id": "study_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Study type", "notes": "Type of study (impact evaluation or systematic review)"}}, {"id": "publication_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Publication type", "notes": "Type of publication (journal article, report, thesis, among othesr)"}}, {"id": "journal", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Journal", "notes": "Name of the journal or outlet"}}, {"id": "journal_rank", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Journal Rank", "notes": "This variable indicates the journal quality quartile (Q1\u2013Q4) based on Scimago Journal Rank"}}, {"id": "open_access", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Open Access", "notes": "If the study has open acess"}}, {"id": "idb_publication", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "IDB Publication", "notes": "If the study is a IDB publication"}}, {"id": "idb_authors", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "IDB authors", "notes": "If the study has authors with IDB affiliation"}}, {"id": "idb_study", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "IDB study", "notes": "If the study is a IDB publication or has IDB authors"}}, {"id": "language", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Language", "notes": "Language of the study"}}, {"id": "abstract", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Abstract", "notes": "Abstract of the study"}}, {"id": "region", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Region", "notes": "Region of the country included in the study. Several regions are separated by a vertical bar ( | ). Multi-region marks a study spanning many regions."}}, {"id": "country", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Country", "notes": "Countries included in the study. Several countries are separated by a vertical bar ( | ). 15+ countries marks a study covering more than fifteen countries, which are not all listed."}}, {"id": "income_level", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Income level", "notes": "Income level of the countries included. Several income levels are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "evaluated_case", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Evaluated case", "notes": "Specific intervention, program or policy being evaluated"}}, {"id": "intervention1", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 1", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype1", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 1", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention2", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 2", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype2", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 2", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention3", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 3", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype3", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 3", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention4", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 4", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype4", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 4", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention5", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 5", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype5", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 5", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention6", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 6", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype6", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 6", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention7", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 7", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype7", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 7", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention8", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 8", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype8", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 8", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention9", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 9", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype9", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 9", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "intervention10", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention 10", "notes": "Intervention evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an intervention named in table 2, e.g. export_promotion_policies for Export promotion policies."}}, {"id": "intervention_subtype10", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Intervention Subtype 10", "notes": "Intervention subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "multicomponent_intervention", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Multi-component intervention", "notes": "If the intervention includes different types"}}, {"id": "outcome1", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 1", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype1", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 1", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome2", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 2", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype2", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 2", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome3", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 3", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype3", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 3", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome4", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 4", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype4", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 4", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome5", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 5", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype5", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 5", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome6", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 6", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype6", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 6", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome7", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 7", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype7", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 7", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome8", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 8", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype8", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 8", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome9", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 9", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype9", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 9", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "outcome10", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 10", "notes": "Outcome evaluated (second level of the EGM framework). Recorded as a short key for an outcome named in table 3, e.g. extensive_margin_trade for Extensive margin of trade."}}, {"id": "outcome_subtype10", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome subtype 10", "notes": "Outcome subtype evaluated (third level of the EGM framework)"}}, {"id": "evaluation_design", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Evaluation design", "notes": "Experimental, quasi-experimental or systematic review"}}, {"id": "method", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Identification or review method", "notes": "Econometric methods for impact evaluations (e.g., RCT, Synthetic control, etc.) or review method for systematic reviews. Several methods are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "sr_quality_appraisal", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Critical appraisal", "notes": "Rates the overall reliability of a systematic review based on the above methodological assessments."}}, {"id": "cost_information", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Cost information", "notes": "If the study includes cost information"}}, {"id": "unit_observation", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Unit of observation", "notes": "Unit of observation of the study or the data used (e.g., country, municipality, individual, firm, etc.). Several units are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "timeframe", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Time frame", "notes": "Temporal horizon of the results reported. Several time frames are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "heterogeneity", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Heterogeneity", "notes": "Heterogeneity dimensions analyzed in the results (e.g., economic sector). Several dimensions are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "tags", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Cross-cutting tags", "notes": "Cross-cutting intervention tags. Tags that could be used for alternative classifications. Several tags are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "mechanism", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Mechanisms", "notes": "Causal mechanism or transmission channel analyzed in the study. Several mechanisms are separated by a vertical bar ( | )."}}, {"id": "evidence_summary", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Evidence summary", "notes": "Brief summary of the evidence"}}, {"id": "outcome1_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 1 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome1_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 1 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome1_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 1 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome2_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 2 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome2_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 2 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome2_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 2 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome3_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 3 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome3_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 3 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome3_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 3 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome4_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 4 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome4_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 4 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome4_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 4 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome5_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 5 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome5_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 5 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome5_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 5 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome6_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 6 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome6_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 6 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome6_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 6 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome7_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 7 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome7_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 7 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome7_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 7 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome8_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 8 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome8_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 8 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome8_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 8 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome9_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 9 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome9_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 9 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome9_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 9 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}, {"id": "outcome10_type", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 10 Type", "notes": "Type of outcome analyzed: main or mechanism"}}, {"id": "outcome10_effectiveness", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 10 Effectiveness", "notes": "Direction and significance of the main effect of the intervention on the outcome"}}, {"id": "outcome10_metric", "type": "text", "info": {"label": "Outcome 10 Metric", "notes": "Metric used in the study for this outcome, or related metrics (e.g., from the Catalog of Results Indicator)"}}], "_links": {"start": "/api/action/datastore_search?resource_id=0b88ce52-9138-4088-9a5d-9b2a3fa54b1c", "next": "/api/action/datastore_search?resource_id=0b88ce52-9138-4088-9a5d-9b2a3fa54b1c&offset=100"}, "last_id": 1, "total": 20, "total_was_estimated": true}}