Review of World Economics

, Volume 139, Issue 4, pp 625–649 | Cite as

Currency unions and trade: The special case of EMU

  • Sergio de NardisEmail author
  • Vicarelli Claudio 


In this paper, the impact of the adoption of the euro on the commercial transactions of EMU countries is investigated. It seeks to disentangle the effects of eliminating exchange rate volatility — and those of other policy factors that promote integration — from the influence of the emergence of the European currency union. Since EMU is a relatively new phenomenon, a panel estimation of the gravity equation in a dynamic framework is used in order to capture effects like trade persistence. The main finding is that the adoption of the euro has had a positive but not an exorbitant impact on bilateral trade between European countries (ranging between 9 and 10 per cent). The impact is much lower than that shown in the recent literature on a larger and heterogeneous set of countries. One reason for this divergence seems to be that the euro was adopted after decades of integration policies had already worked through in Europe. JEL no. F4, F15, C230


Economic integration dynamic panel data 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesina A., R. J. Barro, and S. Tenreyro (2002). Optimal Currency Areas. HIER Discussion Paper 1958. Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., and E. van Wincoop (2001). Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. NBER Working Paper 8079. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass. Published 2003 inAmerican Economic Review 93 (1): 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano, M., and S. Bond (1991). Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.Review of Economic Studies 58 (2): 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltagi, B. H. (2001).Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Belanger, D., S. Gutierrez, and J. Raynauld (1992). The Impact of Exchange Rate Variability on Trade Flows: Further Results on Sectoral U.S. Imports from Canada.North American Journal of Economics and Finance 3 (1): 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brada, J., and J. Mendez (1988). Exchange Rate Risk, Exchange Rate Regime and the Volume of International Trade.Kyklos 41 (2): 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bun, M., and F. Klaassen (2002). The Importance of Dynamics in Panel Gravity Models of Trade. Uva Discussion Paper 2002/19. Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. De Grauwe, P., and F. Skudelny (2000). The Impact of EMU on Trade Flows.Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv/Review of World Economics 136 (3): 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egger, P. (2000). European Exports and Outward Foreign Direct Investment: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach. WIFO Working Paper 129. Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Wien.Google Scholar
  10. Eichengreen, B., and D. A. Irwin (1996). The Role of History in Bilateral Trade Flows. NBER Working Paper 5565. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Estevadeordal, A., A. B. Frantz, and A. Taylor (2003). The Rise and Fall of World Trade, 1870–1939.Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2): 359–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankel, J., and A. K. Rose (2000). Estimating the Effect of a Currency Union on Trade and Output. NBER Working Paper 7857. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Frankel, J., and S. Wei (1993). Trade Blocks and Currency Blocks. NBER Working Paper 4335. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Glick, R., and A. K. Rose (2002). Does a Currency Union Affect Trade? The Time-Series Evidence.European Economic Review 46 (6): 1125–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Head, K., and T. Mayer (2002). Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade. CEPII Working Paper 2002-01. Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Levy Yeyati, E. (2003). On the Impact of a Common Currency on Bilateral Trade.Economic Letters 79 (1): 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linnemann, H. (1966).An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  18. Lockwood, B. (2000). Discussion on “One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade”.Economic Policy 15 (30): 34–35.Google Scholar
  19. Lopez-Cordova, E., and C. M. Meissner (2003). Exchange-Rate Regimes and International Trade: Evidence from the Classical Gold Standard Era.American Economic Review 93 (1): 344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Melitz, J. (2001). Geography, Trade and Currency Unions. CEPR Discussion Paper 2987. Centre for European Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
  21. Micco, A., E. Stein, and G. Ordonez (2003). The Currency Union Effect on Trade: Early Evidence from EMU.Economic Policy 18 (39): 315–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pakko, M., and H. Wall (2001). Reconsidering the Trade Effects of a Currency Union.Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 83 (5): 37–45.Google Scholar
  23. Persson, T. (2001). Currency Unions and Trade: How Large Is the Treatment Effect?Economic Policy 33 (16): 435–448.Google Scholar
  24. Quah, D. (2000). Discussion on: “One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade”.Economic Policy 30 (15): 35–38.Google Scholar
  25. Ritschl, A., and N. Wolf (2003). Endogeneity of Currency Areas and Trade Blocks: Evidence from the Inter-War Period. Working paper, Humboldt University, Berlin. Available at Scholar
  26. Rose, A. K. (2000). One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade.Economic Policy 30 (15): 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, A. K. (2001). Currency Unions and Trade: The Effect Is Large.Economic Policy 33 (16): 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose, A. K. (2002). The Effect of Common Currencies on International Trade: Where Do We Stand? MAS Occasional Paper 22. Economic Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore. Available at Scholar
  29. Rose, A. K., and C. Engel (2000). Currency Unions and International Integration. NBER Working Paper 7872. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  30. Rose, A. K., and E. van Wincoop (2001). National Money as a Barrier to International Trade: The Real Case for Currency Union.American Economic Review 91 (2): 386–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tenreyro, S. (2001). On the Causes and Consequences of Currency Union. Mimeo. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  32. Tenreyro, S., and R. J. Barro (2003). Economic Effects of Currency Unions. NBER Working Paper 9435. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute for World Economics 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISAEInstitute for Studies and Economic AnalysesRome

Personalised recommendations