Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Microeconomic Research in Africa: A Case Study of the Impact of AfCFTA on the Manufacturing Industry in Zambia

African universities conduct substantial research on African economic development challenges, yet many applications rely on statistical methods that may be suboptimal for addressing complex policy questions in which causal relationships operate through multiple, interrelated mechanisms. This paper argues that Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), grounded in Critical Realist ontology, enables African researchers to model complex causal mechanisms, test indirect pathways, account for latent variables, and provide more nuanced policy guidance than traditional statistical methods. The paper grounds this methodological argument in Critical Realism philosophy (Bhaskar, 1978; Sayer, 1992; Archer, 1995), which emphasises generative mechanisms and the stratified nature of social reality. Drawing on this philosophical foundation, the paper develops a comprehensive SEM framework for analysing the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) on Zambia's manufacturing sector, specifying latent constructs for institutional quality, trade policy implementation, and manufacturing competitiveness. The paper concludes that SEM represents an essential methodological tool for African researchers seeking to understand the context-specific, mechanism-dependent nature of economic policy impacts.

Structural Equation Modeling; Critical Realism; African manufacturing; trade policy; AfCFTA; latent variables; methodological innovation

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bloom, N., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2010). Why do firms in developing countries have low productivity? American Economic Review, 100(2), 619–623. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.619 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bollen, K. A., & Grandjean, B. D. (1981). The dimension(s) of alienation. Sociological Methods & Research, 9(4), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124181009004001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Caliendo, L., & Parro, F. (2015). Estimates of the trade and welfare effects of NAFTA. Review of Economic Studies, 82(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdu035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18956 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dixon, P. B., & Parmenter, B. R. (1996). Computable general equilibrium modelling for policy analysis. In Handbook of Computational Economics. Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Doms, M., Dunne, T., & Roberts, M. J. (1995). The role of technology use in firm survival and growth. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 523–542. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 441–487. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hsieh, C. T., & Klenow, P. J. (2009). Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1403–1448. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Journal of Development Studies, 3(4), 220–246. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. K. (2010). Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Newman, C., Tarp, F., & Van den Broeck, K. (2016). Industrial development in sub-Saharan Africa. In Advances in African Economic Development. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Obeng-Odoom, F. (2021). The African Continental Free Trade Area. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80(1), 167–197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Rodrik, D. (2018). New technologies, global value chains, and developing economies. Journal of Development Economics, 133, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tarp, F., & Hjørtshøj, D. (Eds.). (2012). The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid to Africa. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. World Bank. (2023). Zambia Economic Update: Navigating the Fiscal Tightrope. World Bank Group, Southern Africa Region. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. World Economic Forum. (2023). Global Competitiveness Report 2023. Geneva: WEF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]