1. Introduction In the current era of globalization, trade liberalization emerges as one of the most serious policy concerns for governments around the world, especially for developing countries. Trade liberalization is believed to foster economic growth and development through specialization and technological advances (Hoque and Yusop, 2010). The role of trade policy in economic development was a key debate in the development literature for much of the second half of the 20th century. While prevailing opinion in the 1950s and 1960s was in favor of import substitution, that in the 1970s and 1980s favored export promotion/outward orientation (Greenaway et al., 2002). There are numerous empirical studies linking economic growth to trade regime openness (Krueger, 1978; Heitger 1987; World Bank 1987; Romer 1989; Quah and Rauch 1990; Michaely et al., 1991; Dollar, 1992; Edwards, 1992; Harrison, 1995; Savvides, 1995; Onafowora and Owoye, 1998). On the other hand, some other studies find little empirical evidence to support a link between trade liberalization and economic growth (see Sachs, 1987; UNCTAD, 1989; Shafaeddin, 1994; Clarke and Kirkpatrick, 1992; Greenaway and Sapsford, 1994; Karunaratne, 1994; Jenkins, 1996; Greenaway et al., 1997). A possible link between openness and growth has been a major factor in spurring an unprecedented wave of unilateral trade reforms, with more than 100 countries engaging in some sort of trade liberalization in recent years. 20 years. Many of these programs have been voluntary; most, however, have been tied to the policy conditionality that is central to the World Bank's structural adjustment loans (SALs). In fact, trade reforms account for a higher percentage…half of the paper…have a smaller sample size. It is known that the cointegration methods of Engle & Granger (1987) and Johansen (1988, 1995) are not reliable for small sample sizes, such as that of the present study. Several previous studies, however, have applied the ARDL approach to relatively small sample sizes. Gounder (1999, 2002) used ARDL methodology to empirically test various growth hypotheses for Fiji using sample sizes similar to those in this study. Pattichis (1999), Mah (2000), Tang and Nair (2002) and Tang (2001, 2003) applied the ARDL bounds test approach to estimate the import demand function using small sample cases. Tang (2003) applied the ARDL Bounds test approach to estimate the import demand function for Japan with only 18 annual observations. We have 27 annual observations. Therefore, the application of the ARDL Bounds test approach is very appropriate.