Abstract
As part of its growth strategy, Bangladesh instituted a trade liberalization process in the early 1990s which gained momentum in later years. Trade grew from 24.4 to 45% of GDP between 1980–81 and 2007–08, an indicator of increased liberalization as well as the growing importance of the external sector in Bangladesh. Apart from its unilateral liberalization, Bangladesh participates in three different regional trade agreements (RTAs): the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation Free Trade Area (BIMSTEC FTA). In addition, Bangladesh signed preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with the member countries of the Developing 8 (D8). Because of the growing importance of RTAs, this study investigates their contribution to the export flows from Bangladesh using the gravity model that has become the primary tool for estimating the trade effects of regional integration. Regression results of bilateral exports for 40 countries from 1992–2009 indicate two crucial aspects. Firstly, all the RTAs consistently maintained statistically significant negative signs, except the BIMSTEC FTA and SAFTA, which showed insignificantly positive and insignificantly negative effects respectively. Secondly, the intensity of negative effects and the level of significance have shown a declining trend as the status of those blocs has changed from political or economic cooperation agreements to preferential agreements and from preferential agreements to free trade agreements. Thus, the intensity of tariff liberalization and the degree of sectoral coverage seem to be the important determinants of the RTAs’ performance. Therefore, experts expect that full-fledged implementation of FTA provisions and the elimination of all tariff and non-tariff barriers might result in a higher degree of integration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Statistics on RTA were obtained from the WTO website www.wto.org. Accessed 20 February 2011.
In Wei and Frankel (1995).
Table 1 lists the member countries. Afghanistan was granted membership in 2005.
The sensitive lists of Bangladesh contain 1254 items for Non-LDCs and 1249 items for LDCs; India’s lists contain 868 items for Non-LDCs and 480 items for LDCs; Pakistan’s list contains 1169 items, Sri Lanka’s list contains 1065 items; list of Nepal contains 1299 items; the Maldives’ list contains 671 items; Afghanistan’s list contains 1072 items and Bhutan’s list contains 157 items.
Participants of APTA are listed in Table 1. Membership was granted to China in 2001. Thailand was one of the signatories of this agreement but did not ratify it. Hence, the amendment report of the Bangkok Agreement does not recognize Thailand as one of the “Original Participating States” (ESCAP 2005).
The third round of negotiations was completed in 2006, and the fourth round began in 2007.
Details of the Framework Agreement on the Promotion, Protection and Liberalization of Investment is available at: http://www.unescap.org/tid/apta/fa_inv
Member countries of BIMSTEC are listed in Table 1. Myanmar was granted membership in December 1997 while Bhutan and Nepal were admitted in 2003.
The member countries are listed in Table 1.
Information on the number of export products can be accessed at www.epb.org
The sample countries included Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, UK, and USA.
Kandogan (2008) found significantly negative sign.
[{exp (-2.27) -1}*100]. Other values are calculated in the same way.
Hassan (2001) and Kandogan (2008) also reported significant negative effects of SAARC. However, other empirical studies on SAPTA identified somewhat mixed results, such as insignificantly positive impact (Kandogan 2008; Tumbarello 2006); insignificantly negative impact (Rahman 2003); and significantly negative impact (Hassan 2001).
References
Anderson JE (1979) A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. Am Econ Rev 69:106–116
Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J Int Econ 71:72–95
Baldwin RE (1993) The potential for trade between the countries of EFTA and Central and Eastern Europe. CEPR Discussion Paper No.853
Baldwin RE (1994) Towards an integrated Europe. CEPR, London
Baldwin RE (1997) The causes of regionalism. World Econ 20:865–888
Baltagi BH, Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2003) A generalized design for bilateral trade flow models. Econ Lett 80:391–397
Bayoumi T, Eichengreen B (1995) Is regionalism simply a diversion? Evidence from the evolution of the EC and EFTA. NBER Working Paper No.5283
Bergstrand JH (1985) The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Rev Econ Stat 67:474–481
Bergstrand JH (1989) The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition and the factor proportion theory in international trade. Rev Econ Stat 71:143–153
Bergstrand JH (1990) The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson model, the Linder hypothesis and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade. Econ J 100:1216–1229
Bhagwati J (1993) Regionalism and multilateralism: an overview. In: de Melo J, Panagariya A (eds) New dimensions in regional integration, Cambridge, UK, pp 22–51
Brulhart M, Kelly MJ (1999) Ireland’s trading potential with Central and Eastern European countries: A gravity study. Econ Soc Rev 30:159–174
Cheng I-H, Wall HJ (2005) Controlling for heterogeneity in gravity models of trade and integration. Fed Reserv Bank St Louis Rev 87:49–64
Deardorff AV (1998) Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical world? In: Frankel JA (ed) The regionalization of the world economy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 7–32
Egger P (2000) A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Econ Lett 66:25–31
Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2003) The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: a three-way model with bilateral interaction effects. Empir Econ 28:571–580
Ekholm K, Torstensson J, Torstensson R (1996) The economics of the Middle East process: are there prospects for trade and growth? World Econ 19:555–574
ESCAP (2005) Amendment to the First Agreement on Trade Negotiations among Developing Member Countries of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok Agreement). http://www.unescap.org/tid/apta/ta_amend. Accessed 15 July 2010
Evenett SJ, Keller W (2002) On theories explaining the success of the gravity equation. J Polit Econ 110:281–316
Feenstra RC (2002) Border effects and the gravity equation: consistent methods for estimation. Scot J Polit Econ 49:491–506
Feenstra RC, Markusen JA, Rose AK (2001) Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Can J Econ 34:430–447
Frankel JA, Stein E, Wei S-J (1994) Trading blocs and the Americas: The natural, the unnatural, and the super-natural. J D Econ 47:61–95
Gros D, Gonciarz A (1996) A note on the trade potential of Central and Eastern Europe. Eur J Polit Econ 12:709–721
Hamilton CB, Winters LA (1992) Opening up international trade with Eastern Europe. Econ Policy 14:77–116
Hassan MK (2001) Is SAARC a viable economic bloc? Evidence from gravity model. J Asian Econ 12:263–290
Helpman E (1987) Imperfect competition and international trade: evidence from fourteen industrial countries. J Jpn Int Econ 1:62–81
Helpman E, Krugman PR (1985) Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing return, imperfect competition and international economy. MIT, Cambridge
Kandogan Y (2007) Sensitivity of international bloc’s trade effect to alternative specifications of the gravity equation. J Appl Econ 10:337–360
Kandogan Y (2008) Consistent estimates of regional blocs’ trade effects. Rev Int Econ 16:301–314
Kelegama S (2001) Bangkok Agreement and BIMSTEC: crawling regional economic groupings in Asia. J Asian Econ 12:105–121
Kien NT (2009) Gravity model by panel data approach-An empirical application with implications for the ASEAN free trade area. ASEAN Econ Bull 26:266–277
Krugman P (1991) Is bilateralism bad? In: Helpman E, Razin A (eds) International trade and trade policy, Chapter 1, MIT, Cambridge, pp 9–23
Lahiri S (1998) Controversy: regionalism versus multilateralism. Econ J 108:1126–1127
Matyas L (1997) Proper econometric specification of the gravity model. World Econ 20:363–368
Matyas L (1998) The gravity model: some econometric considerations. World Econ 21:397–401
Montenegro CE, Soloaga I (2006) NAFTA’s trade effects: new evidence with gravity model. Estud Econ 33:45–63
Oguledo V-I, MacPhee CR (1994) Gravity models: a reformulation and an application to discriminatory trade arrangements. Appl Econ 26:107–120
Plummer MG (2007) Best practices in regional trading agreements: an application to Asia. World Econ 30:1771–1796
Polak J (1996) Is APEC a natural regional trading bloc? A critique of the gravity model of international trade. World Econ 19:533–543
Rahman MM (2003) A panel data of Bangladesh’s trade: The gravity model approach. Paper presented at the European Trade Study Group (ETSG). http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/rahman. Accessed 22 May 2010
Sandberg HM, Seale JL, Taylor TG (2006) History, regionalism, and CARICOM trade: a gravity model analysis. J Dev Stud 42:795–811
Soloaga I, Winters LA (2001) Regionalism in the nineties: what effect on trade? N Am J Econ Finance 12:1–29
Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the world economy: suggestions for an international economic policy. Twentieth Century Fund, New York
Tumbarello P (2006) Are regional agreements in Asia stumbling or building blocks? Some implications for the Mekong countries. Paper presented in the seminar ‘Accelerating Development in the Mekong Region-The Role of Economic Integration. Cambodia. http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2006/mekong. Accessed 7 August 2010
Wang ZK, Winters LA (1991) The trading potential of Eastern Europe. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 610
Wei S-J, Frankel JA (1995) Open regionalism in a world of continental trade blocs. NBER Working Paper No. 5272
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the two anonymous referees for their constructive comments and insightful suggestions on an earlier version of the paper. We are also thankful to the participants at the17th Annual South Dakota International Business Conference, USA, October 01, 2010 and the 5th International Conference on Regional Innovation and Cooperation in Asia, Japan, November 23, 2010, for their valuable comments. A part of this research is financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology of Japan (Grant Number 235303020004).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ullah, M.S., Inaba, K. Impact of RTA and PTA on Bangladesh’s Export: Application of a Gravity Model. J Ind Compet Trade 12, 445–460 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-011-0116-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-011-0116-3