Volume 35: Paper 2
The African Growth and Opportunity Act: Its Impact on Financial Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Nathan Haas
Belmont University
nathan.haas@bruins.belmont.edu
From assembly lines in East Africa to shipping ports along the West African coast, a single trade policy can shape development trajectories by influencing investment decisions, employment levels, and export opportunities across Sub-Saharan Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a unilateral preferential trade program enacted in May of 2000 by the United States to promote export-led, sustainable economic growth and development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) by granting eligible countries duty-free access to the U.S. market for a broad set of products [1]. Eligibility is reviewed annually and is conditioned on specific criteria set forth by the United States in five primary areas: economic (establishing a market-based economy without barriers to U.S. trade); political (rule of law, political pluralism, and anti-corruption); poverty reduction; labor (child labor and human rights); and terrorism and security [2].
As of 2024, 39 countries are eligible for AGOA benefits (out of 49 potential program countries) [3]. Recent legislative activity has focused on extending the program beyond its scheduled expiration; for example, the U.S. House advanced legislation in January 2026 to extend AGOA through December 31, 2028, which then moved to the Senate for further action [4].
Since AGOA’s implementation, the U.S. has imported roughly $791 billion worth of goods averaging around $37.7 billion per year spanning the 20-year gap from 2001 to 2021 [1]. AGOA has been associated with increased foreign direct investment (FDI) in parts of the region, raising the possibility that preferential market access may influence domestic financial systems. FDI in this region has more than tripled from 2000 to 2021, with an average of $1.1 billion in new capital being invested each year [1].
While the effects of AGOA on exports and related outcomes have been widely studied, its relationship with financial development (FD) has received comparatively limited empirical attention, despite the central role of financial institutions and markets in supporting long-run growth and resource allocation. Identifying AGOA’s effect on FD is challenging because financial outcomes are shaped by macroeconomic conditions, policy reforms, and unobserved country factors that evolve over time.
The following study was guided by the question: How does AGOA eligibility affect financial development in SSA after 2000, and do the effects differ between financial institutions and financial markets? Using an annual panel of SSA countries between 1980–2021 and measures from the IMF Financial Development Index, the analysis applies a difference-in-differences framework comparing eligible and non-eligible SSA countries before and after AGOA’s implementation, controlling for standard macroeconomic determinants of financial development.
The hypothesis is that AGOA-eligible countries experience larger increases in FD after enactment than non-eligible SSA countries, with no substantial difference between the effects on financial institutions and financial markets.
The paper contributes to existing literature in three ways. First, it provides evidence on how a major unilateral trade preference program relates to financial development in SSA. Second, it assesses whether effects are concentrated in financial institutions versus financial markets. Third, it informs policy discussions on the evaluation and design of trade preference programs by connecting trade access to domestic financial-sector outcomes.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section I reviews relevant literature surrounding AGOA and FD. Section II describes the data and variables. Section III outlines the empirical strategy. Section IV presents the results and robustness checks. Section V concludes and discusses implications of the study’s findings.
I. Literature Review
AGOA was created by the United States to support Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries by expanding their access to U.S. markets, encouraging trade, and promoting market-led economic growth and development. AGOA is often described as an extension of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, while offering broader product coverage and additional tariff reductions [5]. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has served as the foundation of U.S. trade policy with Africa by providing highly preferential access to the U.S. market for thousands of products produced in, and exported by, qualifying SSA countries. Eligibility is contingent on countries establishing or making continual progress toward meeting the requirements set forth in section 104 of AGOA which are related to liberalization, the rule of law, human rights protections, and core labor standards [6]. This also includes a market-based economy, the right to due process, the elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment, economic policies to reduce poverty, a system to combat corruption and bribery, and the protection of internationally recognized worker rights. This section reviews existing research on AGOA’s trade and investment impacts and motivates the link between preferential trade access and financial development.
A large body of work evaluates whether AGOA achieved its trade objectives. Frazer and Biesebroeck [7] examine the effects of AGOA using a triple difference-in-differences approach and find a large and robust impact on exports—particularly in apparel, agriculture, and manufactured goods. Their analysis also considers whether rising exports to the United States reflect new export creation or diversion from other markets (such as the European Union). They conclude that the export gains are primarily driven by increased production rather than redirection of existing exports [7]. Complementing these findings, research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies [8] reports that trade between the United States and SSA increased substantially after 2000, reaching $104.7 billion in 2019 compared to $29.4 billion in 2000 [8]. Together, these studies suggest AGOA has meaningfully expanded trade flows for eligible countries.
Beyond trade volumes, AGOA may influence broader development outcomes through investment and financing channels. Preferential trade agreements can attract FDI as firms seek to locate production in countries with improved market access, while governments aim to mobilize FDI to support long-run growth [9]. However, Naidu and Vicker [9] caution that such agreements can constrain the capacity of national governments to make policies and restrict the ability of legislatures to fulfill their requirements to advance public interest. The policy risks associated with these agreements can cause the sovereignty of governments to be undermined as external investors seek to take advantage of a country’s natural resources, in this case SSA countries. Naidu and Vickers argue that maximizing the developmental benefits of FDI requires a balance between investment protection and public interest objectives, including job creation and skill development through education [9]. Related work also notes that SSA economies experienced relatively strong growth in the period following AGOA’s introduction, raising the possibility that trade preferences contributed to broader macroeconomic improvements through capital formation, a rise in the standards of living, and integration into global markets [10].
This study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, to our knowledge, no prior work directly examines the relationship between AGOA eligibility and financial development. Second, we provide a comprehensive assessment over a long-time horizon, allowing us to evaluate whether any effects are persistent and whether they differ across financial institutions and financial markets. This gap matters because financial development through stronger institutions and deeper markets can shape how trade and investment translate into sustained, long-term growth by expanding access to credit and improving resource allocation. Building on evidence that AGOA increases trade and may influence investment incentives, we test whether AGOA eligibility is associated with improved financial development in SSA and whether effects are concentrated in financial institutions or financial markets.
II. Data
Data used to analyze the relationship between AGOA eligibility and financial development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) were compiled from the World Bank’s IMF FDI dataset and the World Development Indicators [11, 12]. The dataset is an annual country-level panel for 49 SSA countries spanning 1980–2021. After excluding country-year observations with missing values for the dependent variables or the core control variables, the final analytic sample includes 1,226 country-year observations.
The dependent variables come from the IMF Financial Development Index Database [13]. These measures are standardized indices ranging from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate more developed financial systems. For context, the FD index ranges from 0.012 in South Sudan to 0.951 in Switzerland, with examples such as Venezuela (0.255), Turkey (0.530), and Singapore (0.731) falling in between [14]. The main dependent variable is the overall Financial Development (FD) index, a composite measure that aggregates nine sub-indices capturing the development of financial systems. The nine sub-indices are: Financial Institutions (FI), Financial Markets (FM), Financial Institution Access (FIA), Financial Institution Depth (FID), Financial Institution Efficiency (FIE), Financial Market Access (FMA), Financial Market Depth (FMD), and Financial Market Efficiency (FME) and are used to assess whether estimated effects differ across segments of the financial system. These outcomes allow the paper to distinguish whether changes are driven primarily by institutional intermediation (FI) or by capital-market development (FM).
The main policy variables follow the difference-in-differences setup. AGOA in Table I is a post-policy indicator equal to 1 for years 2000 and later and 0 otherwise. Eligible equals 1 in country-years in which a country is eligible for AGOA benefits and 0 otherwise, consistent with the eligibility changes (including losses and reinstatements) documented in Appendix Table A2. The DID treatment variable is the interaction AGOA × ELIGIBLE, which captures differential changes in financial development for AGOA-eligible countries after 2000 relative to non-eligible SSA countries over the same period.
The control variables are standard macroeconomic determinants of financial development drawn from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators and the World Bank’s IMF FDI dataset [11, 12]. These include GDP growth, government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP), trade openness (% of GDP), gross capital formation (% of GDP), FDI inflows (% of GDP), and inflation.
Table I: Descriptive Statistics of Financial Development and Other Variables
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables | |||||
| Financial Development (FD) | 0.136 | 0.104 | 0.000 | 0.590 | 1226 |
| Financial Institutions Access (FIA) | 0.096 | 0.152 | 0.000 | 0.900 | 1226 |
| Financial Institutions Depth (FID) | 0.103 | 0.138 | 0.000 | 0.860 | 1226 |
| Financial Institutions Efficiency (FIE) | 0.485 | 0.158 | 0.000 | 0.960 | 1226 |
| Financial Institutions (FI) | 0.217 | 0.128 | 0.000 | 0.720 | 1226 |
| Financial Markets Access (FMA) | 0.052 | 0.143 | 0.000 | 0.910 | 1226 |
| Financial Markets Depth (FMD) | 0.062 | 0.112 | 0.000 | 0.790 | 1226 |
| Financial Markets Efficiency (FME) | 0.028 | 0.106 | 0.000 | 0.990 | 1226 |
| Financial Markets (FM) | 0.049 | 0.091 | 0.000 | 0.530 | 1226 |
| Key Independent Variables | |||||
| AGOA | 0.623 | 0.485 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1226 |
| Eligible | 0.518 | 0.500 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1226 |
| Independent Control Variables | |||||
| Growth (%) | 3.603 | 4.921 | -36.392 | 33.629 | 1226 |
| Government Consumption/GDP (%) | 15.224 | 6.809 | 2.058 | 46.262 | 1226 |
| Trade/GDP (%) | 64.618 | 33.353 | 4.128 | 222.178 | 1226 |
| Investment/GDP (%) | 22.072 | 9.244 | 2.100 | 76.782 | 1226 |
| FDI/GDP (%) | 2.871 | 5.018 | -17.292 | 56.288 | 1226 |
| Inflation (%) | 35.075 | 768.221 | -29.173 | 26762.018 | 1226 |
Note: Summary statistics are unweighted. All variables are shown in the units as described in Table A1 which also provides the various sources of the data.
Source: Authors’ computations
Table I reports unweighted descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and number of observations) for the financial development measures, the key AGOA variables, and the macroeconomic controls. The FD measures suggest relatively low average financial development across SSA in the sample period (e.g., mean FD = 0.136 on a 0–1 scale), with substantially higher values on average for financial institutions (FI) than for financial markets (FM).
Table II: Pairwise Correlation among Financial Development and AGOA Eligibility
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AGOA*Eligible | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| 2 | Financial Development (FD) | 0.19*** | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 3 | Financial Institutions Access (FIA) | 0.17*** | 0.76*** | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 4 | Financial Institutions Depth (FID) | 0.17*** | 0.83*** | 0.45*** | 1.00 | |||||||
| 5 | Financial Institutions Efficiency (FIE) | 0.10*** | 0.52*** | 0.33*** | 0.27*** | 1.00 | ||||||
| 6 | Financial Institutions (FI) | 0.20*** | 0.95*** | 0.83*** | 0.79*** | 0.62*** | 1.00 | |||||
| 7 | Financial Markets Access (FMA) | 0.11*** | 0.63*** | 0.33*** | 0.47*** | 0.21*** | 0.46*** | 1.00 | ||||
| 8 | Financial Markets Depth (FMD) | 0.10*** | 0.74*** | 0.53*** | 0.52*** | 0.29*** | 0.61*** | 0.37*** | 1.00 | |||
| 9 | Financial Markets Efficiency (FME) | 0.13*** | 0.64*** | 0.31*** | 0.69*** | 0.15*** | 0.53*** | 0.24*** | 0.40*** | 1.00 | ||
| 10 | Financial Markets (FM) | 0.15*** | 0.90*** | 0.53*** | 0.73*** | 0.30*** | 0.71*** | 0.76*** | 0.80*** | 0.68*** | 1.00 |
Notes: Statistical levels of significance are: * indicates p<0.10, ** indicates p<0.05, *** indicates p<0.01. Correlations are unweighted.
Source: Authors’ computations based on data from the various sources as shown in Table A1.
Table II reports unweighted pairwise correlations among AGOA × ELIGIBLE and the financial development outcomes. The interaction term is positively correlated with FD and several subcomponents, including FI. These correlations are descriptive and do not account for country-specific factors, time effects, or the included macroeconomic controls; therefore, the empirical strategy section presents the difference-in-differences estimates used for inference.
III. Empirical Strategy
All analysis was conducted in Stata to generate summary statistics and estimate the models described below. The analysis uses an annual panel of SSA countries over 1980–2021, comparing AGOA-eligible and non-eligible countries before and after the policy’s implementation in 2000. The primary dependent variable is the IMF’s overall Financial Development (FD) index. To examine whether effects differ across parts of the financial system, additional outcomes include the IMF sub-indices for Financial Institutions (FI) and Financial Markets (FM), along with their component measures of access, depth, and efficiency (FIA, FID, FIE; FMA, FMD, FME). The key independent variable is a difference-in-differences treatment indicator capturing AGOA exposure, and control variables are selected to account for macroeconomic factors that may influence financial development beyond AGOA.
To estimate the association between AGOA eligibility and financial development, a standard difference-in-differences (DID) model is used:
(1) $$Y_{st}= α+ β(AGOA_t × ELIGIBLE_{st})+ θ^{‘} X_{st}+ ε_{st}$$
where Y_st represents the financial development outcome for country s in year t (FD, FI, FM, or the access/depth/efficiency subcomponents). AGOAt is an indicator equal to 1 for years 2000 and later and 0 otherwise. ELIGIBLEst equals 1 in years when a country is eligible for AGOA benefits and 0 otherwise, consistent with the eligibility changes documented in Appendix Table A2. The coefficient of interest is β, which captures the DID estimate: the differential change in financial development after 2000 for AGOA-eligible countries relative to non-eligible SSA countries over the same period.
The vector Xst includes standard macroeconomic determinants of financial development: GDP growth, government consumption (% of GDP), trade openness (% of GDP), investment (% of GDP), FDI inflows (% of GDP), and inflation. The model is estimated using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), with standard errors clustered at the country level to account for within-country correlation over time.
IV. Results
Table III reports the baseline difference-in-differences estimates of AGOA eligibility on FD, FI, and FM, with controls and standard errors clustered at the country level.
Table III: The Impact of Africa Growth and Opportunity Act on Financial Development
| Variables | (1) Financial Development (FD) |
(2) Financial Institutions (FI) |
(3) Financial Markets (FM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGOA*Eligible | 0.042*** (0.015) |
0.045*** (0.015) |
0.037* (0.019) |
| Growth | -0.002 (0.002) |
-0.001 (0.002) |
-0.003 (0.002) |
| Government Consumption/GDP | 0.108* (0.062) |
0.120** (0.055) |
0.091 (0.067) |
| Trade/GDP | -0.007 (0.019) |
-0.037 (0.024) |
0.029* (0.015) |
| Investment/ GDP | -0.024 (0.024) |
-0.008 (0.022) |
-0.042 (0.029) |
| FDI/GDP | -0.015 (0.012) |
-0.015 (0.012) |
-0.015 (0.013) |
| Inflation | 0.000 (0.000) |
0.000** (0.000) |
-0.000 (0.000) |
| Observations | 1,118 | 1,118 | 1,118 |
| R-square | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.23 |
Notes: Dependent variable is shown at the top of each column of results. Except for the interaction term, all variables are natural logs. Heteroskedastic and autocorrelation robust standard errors clustered at the country-level are shown in parentheses. Statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% confidence levels are denoted by *, ** and ***, respectively. Regressions are weighted by country population. Variables are defined in Table A1.
Consistent with the first part of the hypothesis, the interaction term AGOA × ELIGIBLE is positive and statistically significant for overall financial development. Specifically, AGOA eligibility is associated with a 0.042 increase in the Financial Development (FD) index. This indicates that, after 2000, AGOA-eligible SSA countries experienced larger gains in financial development than non-eligible SSA countries over the same period.
Table III also distinguishes between financial institutions (FI) and financial markets (FM). The estimated effect is larger and more precisely estimated for financial institutions (0.045) than for financial markets (0.037). These results do not support the second part of the hypothesis that AGOA’s effects on financial institutions and financial markets show no substantial difference; instead, the baseline results suggest stronger and more consistent gains in financial institutions relative to financial markets.
Table IV: The Impact of Africa Growth and Opportunity Act on Financial Development
| Variables | (1) Financial Institutions Access (FIA) |
(2) Financial Institutions Depth (FID) |
(3) Financial Institutions Efficiency (FIE) |
(4) Financial Markets Access (FMA) |
(5) Financial Markets Depth (FMD) |
(6) Financial Markets Efficiency (FME) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGOA*Eligible | 0.025** (0.012) |
0.028 (0.020) |
0.072** (0.030) |
0.029 (0.018) |
0.041 (0.025) |
0.036* (0.018) |
| Growth | -0.003* (0.002) |
-0.003 (0.003) |
0.002 (0.002) |
-0.002 (0.002) |
-0.003 (0.003) |
-0.002 (0.002) |
| Government Consumption/GDP | 0.073 (0.045) |
0.140* (0.081) |
0.107*** (0.027) |
0.043 (0.048) |
0.140 (0.091) |
0.069 (0.055) |
| Trade/GDP | 0.016 (0.015) |
-0.039 (0.034) |
-0.082*** (0.027) |
0.046** (0.023) |
0.021 (0.017) |
0.018 (0.014) |
| Investment/ GDP | -0.024 (0.019) |
-0.024 (0.028) |
0.036 (0.027) |
-0.022 (0.024) |
-0.057 (0.036) |
-0.039 (0.026) |
| FDI/GDP | -0.011 (0.010) |
-0.019 (0.017) |
-0.008 (0.010) |
-0.005 (0.012) |
-0.021 (0.018) |
-0.015 (0.010) |
| Inflation | 0.000 (0.000) |
-0.000 (0.000) |
0.000*** (0.000) |
-0.000 (0.000) |
-0.000 (0.000) |
-0.000 (0.000) |
| Observations | 1,118 | 1,118 | 1,118 | 1,118 | 1,118 | 1,118 |
| R-square | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.20 |
Notes: Dependent variable is shown at the top of each column of results. Except for the interaction term, all variables are in logarithms. Heteroskedastic and autocorrelation robust standard errors are shown in parentheses are clustered at the country level. Statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% confidence levels are denoted by *, ** and ***, respectively. Regressions are weighted by country population. Variables are defined in Table A1.
Table IV breaks the FI and FM results into access, depth, and efficiency. Consistent with Table III, the evidence is stronger for financial institutions: AGOA × ELIGIBLE is statistically significant for FIA and FIE, while FID is positive but not significant. For financial markets, coefficients are positive but less precisely estimated; only FME is statistically significant, while FMA and FMD are positive but not significant. Overall, the subcomponent results reinforce that post-AGOA gains are more consistent in financial institutions than in financial markets.
Table V: The Impact of Africa Growth and Opportunity Act on Financial Development
Robustness Check: Dropped the years immediately before (1998 and 1999) and after (2001 and 2002) AGOA
| Variables | (1) Financial Development (FD) |
(2) Financial Institutions (FI) |
(3) Financial Markets (FM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGOA*Eligible | 0.048*** (0.016) |
0.051*** (0.016) |
0.043** (0.019) |
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 987 | 987 | 987 |
| R-square | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.25 |
Notes: Dependent variables, expressed in logarithms, are shown is at the top of each column of results. Heteroskedastic and autocorrelation robust standard errors are shown in parentheses are clustered at the country level. Statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% confidence levels are denoted by *, ** and ***, respectively. Control variables are in logarithm and comprise the following: growth, government consumption/GDP, Trade/GDP, Investment/GDP, FDI/GDP and inflation. Regressions are weighted by country population. Variables are defined in Table A1.
Table V presents a robustness check excluding the years immediately surrounding AGOA’s implementation (1998–1999 and 2001–2002) to reduce concern that the estimated effects are driven by anticipatory adjustments or short-run transition dynamics. The core conclusion remains unchanged and, if anything, strengthens. The AGOA × ELIGIBLE coefficient increases slightly for FD to 0.048, FI to 0.051, and FM to 0.043. Overall, the robustness results reinforce the interpretation that AGOA eligibility is associated with sustained, long-term improvements in financial development, with the strongest and most consistent effects concentrated in financial institutions.
V. Conclusion
This paper examines whether AGOA eligibility is associated with higher financial development in Sub-Saharan Africa after 2000 and whether effects differ between financial institutions and financial markets. Using an annual panel of SSA countries from 1980–2021 and a difference-in-differences design comparing eligible and non-eligible countries before and after AGOA’s implementation, the results indicate that AGOA eligibility is associated with statistically significant increases in overall financial development. This supports the first part of the hypothesis. However, the estimated effects are stronger and more consistently measured in financial institutions than in financial markets, providing weaker evidence for the second part of the hypothesis that effects would be similar across the two segments. Overall, the findings suggest that preferential trade access under AGOA may be linked to improvements in domestic financial-sector performance, particularly through institutional development and financial intermediation.
One limitation of this study is that AGOA eligibility is not fixed over time, as some countries enter or lose eligibility during the sample period. This variation may affect the estimated treatment effects and complicate interpretation of AGOA’s overall impact. To the extent that changes in eligibility weaken the consistency of treatment exposure, this issue would likely bias the estimates downward rather than upward. Future research could address this by distinguishing between countries that remained eligible throughout the AGOA period and those that gained or lost eligibility over time. Another useful next step would be to incorporate more recent developments in the difference-in-differences literature to strengthen the empirical strategy.
These results add to the literature by looking at AGOA’s effects beyond trade flows and by breaking financial development into financial institutions and financial markets, including their access, depth, and efficiency. From a policy perspective, the results suggest that trade preference programs work best when paired with domestic reforms that strengthen financial systems and expand access to financial services, helping trade opportunities lead to broader development gains.
Future research could test whether similar trade preference programs in other developing regions yield comparable financial-sector effects or could investigate more directly the channels through which AGOA may influence financial development. Taken together, the evidence supports the broader idea that trade policy can shape development not only through exports, but also through domestic financial-system strengthening that may support long-run growth.
VI: Acknowledgment
I express my gratitude to Dr. Colin Cannonier, Professor of Economics at Belmont University, for his invaluable guidance, feedback, assistance with data, and technical support throughout my empirical study. I am grateful to Belmont University, Jack C. Massey College of Business, and the Department of Economics for providing technical resources and literature for the production and completion of this study
VII: References
- The African Growth and Opportunities Act: A Review of Its Benefits, Limitations, Utilization, and Results. 2023. Available online: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/aldcinf2023d2_en.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
- African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): Program Usage, Trends, and Sectoral Highlights. USITC Publication 5419. 2023. Available online: https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub5419.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
- Tadesse, Bedassa. 2024. “The Impacts of the African Growth Opportunity Act on the Economic Performances of Sub-Saharan African Countries: A Comprehensive Review” Sci 6, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010014
- gov. (2026).H.R. 6500 (119th Congress): AGOA Extension Act. Library of Congress. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6500 (accessed on 4 February 2026).
- Sandefur, J; Subramanian, A. Long-Distance Industrial Policy for Africa: AGOA Background; Center for Global Development, 2024. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58546.4 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Daniel, R; Nagar, D, Africa and External Actors: Africa’s Key Traditional Bilateral Relations; Center for Conflict Resolution, 2016. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05137.6 (accessed on 25 November 2024)
- Frazer, G; Biesebroeck, Trade Growth Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The MIT Press. The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2010, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 128-144. Available Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25651394 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Daniel, R; Ramanujam, S. Beyond 2025 The Future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act; JSTOR; Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2022. Available online: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/220304_Runde_Future_of_AGOA.pdf?VersionId=l4ByGahIBuw0otcxFElU0Ah6xayrnryZ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Naidu, S; Vickers, B, The Policy Impact of International Agreements in Africa; Centre for Conflict Resolution, 2014. Available online: https://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep05167.8 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Babarinde, O; Wright, S, African and the United States: Assessing AGOA; Indiana University Press, 2017. Africa Today, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 23-47. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.64.2.02 (accessed on 25 November 2024)
- World Bank. (n.d.). IMF FDI dataset. Prosperity Data360. Retrieved January 9, 2025, from https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/dataset/IMF+FDI
- World Bank. (n.d.). World Development Indicators (WDI). World Bank DataBank. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on 9 January 2025).
- International Monetary Fund. (2021). Financial Development Index Database. https://data.imf.org/?sk=F8032E80-B36C-43B1-AC26-493C5B1CD33b
- Svirydzenka, K. Introducing a New Broad-based Index of Financial Development; IMF Working Paper No. WP/16/5; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 31–34. Available online: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp1605.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2026).
- International Trade Administration. (2025).African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): Country eligibility. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available online: https://legacy.trade.gov/agoa/eligibility/ (accessed on 9 January 2025).