Asia Europe Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 41–55 | Cite as

Global economies of scale in the EU-India trade agreement: are they the key to a return to economic growth?

  • Sangeeta Khorana
  • Nicholas Perdikis
  • William A. Kerr
Original Paper

Abstract

Economies of scale are an alternative source of growth particularly at a time when countries are suffering from global economic malaise. The proposed EU-India free trade agreement holds substantial promise as this will create a combined market of over one and a half billion and generate economies of scale from intra-industry trade, which are likely to be concentrated in manufactured products such as chemicals, machinery and transport equipment. Bold action is needed on the part of politicians in both the EU and India to successfully negotiate the agreement given that this will enable both countries to reap the efficiency gains of global economies of scale, provide a significant competitive advantage over other major economies and deliver the necessary spur to shake both the EU and India out of their current economic stagnation.

References

  1. Achterbosch, T., Kuiper, M. and Rosa. P. (2008) EU-India Free Trade Agreement: A Quantitative Assessment, Report No. 2008–059, The Hague: LEI WageningenGoogle Scholar
  2. Balogh T (1963) Unequal Partners. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Birdsall N, Lawrence RZ (1999) Deep integration and trade agreements: good for developing countries. In: Kaul I (ed) Global public goods, International cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan JM (1993) The return to increasing returns: an introductory summary. In: Buchanan JM, Yoon YJ (eds) The Return to increasing returns. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  5. CARIS-CUTS (2007) Qualitative Analysis of a Potential Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and India, Report for DG-Trade, European Commission by the Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex and CUTS InternationalGoogle Scholar
  6. Commission E (2007) Recommendation from the Commission to the Council - Authorising the Commission to Negotiate A Free Trade Agreement With India On Behalf Of The European Community And Its Member States. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Commission E (2008) EU-India FTA Negotiations: EC Key Messages. European Commission, January-February, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. De Gucht K. (2010) Speech: Europe and Singapore: partners in trade, partners for growth Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore, 3 March 2010Google Scholar
  9. De, P. and Raychaudhari, A. (2008) Is India’s Services Trade Pro-poor?: A Simultaneous Approach, in UNESCAP (ed.), Emerging Trade Issues for Policymakers in Developing Countries in Asia and the Pacific, Studies in Trade and Investment No. 64, New York and Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.Google Scholar
  10. Decreux, Y. and Mitaritonna, C. (2007) Economic Impact of a Potential Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and India, Report by CEPII/CEMIN for the EU, Trade Specific Contract No. SI2.434.087, Brussels: DGFT European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. DG Trade (2011) Bilateral Relations: Free Trade AgreementsGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreze SJ (1960) Quelques reflexions sereines sur l’adaptation de l’industry Belge au Marche Commun. Comtes Rendus des Travaux de la Societe Royale d’Economie Politique de Belgique, no 275:47–62Google Scholar
  13. Ecorys (2009) Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment for the FTA between the EU and the Republic of India, Report for DG Trade of the European Commission, Reference No. TRADE07/C1/C01-Lot 1, Rotterdam: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Ethier WJ (1993) National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade in. In: Buchanan JM, Yoon YJ (eds) The Return to Increasing Returns. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 203–228Google Scholar
  15. EU Market Access Database (2006), India: Procurement Discrimination, http://mkaccdb.eu.int/madb_barriers/barriers_details.htm?barrier_id=960031&version=2 (accessed 20 May 2012).
  16. European Commission (2006) Global Europe: Competing in the World, Document No. COM 567/2006, Brussels: European Commission; http://trade.ec.europa.eu/legislation_summaries/external_trade/r11022_en.htm (accessed 20 May 2012)
  17. European Commission (2010) Growth, Jobs and Trade, COM (2010)216.Google Scholar
  18. Ferreira PC, Rossi JL (2001) New evidence on trade liberalisation and productivity growth, Ensaios Economicos da EPGE, no. 433Google Scholar
  19. Finger JM (1975) A new view of the product life cycle. Weltwitschaftliches Archiv 111:79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaisford JD, Kerr WA (2001) Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasiorek M, Holmes P, Robinson S, Rollo J, Shinghal A, Mukherjee C, Nanda N, Pahariya NC, Simi TB (2007) A Qualitative Analysis of a Potential Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and India. European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. Gavin B, Sindzingre A (2009) EU trade relations with emerging Asia: identifying the issues. Asia Eur J 7:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Globerman S (1992) North American trade liberalisation and intra-industry trade. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch 128:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Government of India (2007) Exploring New Regionalism – the EU, India and Beyond, transcript of the proceedings from a conference organized by CENTAD, October 30-November 1.Google Scholar
  25. Government of India (2011) Trade Agreements: Ministry of Commerce.Google Scholar
  26. Greenspan A (2007) The Age of Turbulence. The Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Grubel HG, Lloyd P (1975) Intra-Industry Trade: The Theory and Measurement of International Trade in Differentiated Products. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay DA (2001) Post 1990 Brazilian trade liberalisation and the performance of large manufacturing firms: productivity, market share and profits. Econ J 111(473):620–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henriksen, E. R., Knarvik, K.H. Midelfart and S. Frode (2001) Economies of Scale in European Manufacturing Revisited. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2896.Google Scholar
  30. Hirsch S (1967) The Location of Industry and International Competitiveness. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Isaac GE (2007) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues. In: Kerr WA, Gaisford JD (eds) Handbook on International Trade Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 383–393Google Scholar
  32. Jonsson, G. and Subramanian, A. (1999) Dynamic gains from trade: evidence from South Africa, International Monetary Fund Working Paper no: WP/00/45.Google Scholar
  33. Kerr WA (2012) Strategic devaluation, trade and political convenience. J Int Law and Trade Policy 13(1):1–13Google Scholar
  34. Kerr WA (2000) The next step will be harder: issues for the new round of agricultural negotiations at the world trade organization. J World Trade 34(1):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerr, W.A. and Forgrave, R.J. (2002) The Prophecies of the Naysayers – Assessing the Vision of the Protectionists in the U.S.-Canada Debate on Agricultural Reciprocity, 1846–1854, Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 3 (2): 357–408Google Scholar
  36. Kerr WA, Hobbs JE (2005) Consumers, Cows and Carousels: Why the Dispute Over Beef Hormones is Far More Important than Its Commercial Value. In: Perdikis N, Read R (eds) The WTO and the Regulation of International Trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 191–214Google Scholar
  37. Khorana S, Garcia M (2013) EU-India free trade agreement: one step forward, One Back? J Common Mark Stud 51(4):684–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Khorana S, Asthana A (2014) ), EU’s FTA negotiations with India: the question of liberalisation of public procurement. Asia Eur J. doi:10.1007/s10308-014-0369-7 Google Scholar
  39. Khorana S, Perdikis N (2010) EU-India trade agreement: deal or no deal? S Asian Econ J 11(2):181–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Khorana S, Subramanian S (2012) Potential accession to the WTO government procurement agreement: a case-study on India’. J Int Econ Law 15(1):287–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khorana S, Perdikis N, Yeung MT, Kerr WA (2010) Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Era of Globalisation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim S, Han G (2000) A Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Growth in Korean Manufacturing Industries: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. J Product Anal 16(3):269–281, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krugman, P. (2012) What Ails Europe? New York Times, February 26; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?ref=paulkrugman (accessed 20 May 2012).
  44. Lee, J.W. (1996) Government interventions and productivity growth, Journal of Economic Growth, Volume 1, Number 3 (1996), 391–414.Google Scholar
  45. MacKay E, Kerr WA (2007) Transition to What?: Institutional Change and the Evolution of Economic Systems. In: Gaisford JD, Mayevsky V, Kerr WA (eds) Revitalizing Russian Industry. Nova, New York, pp 5–18Google Scholar
  46. OECD (1994) The OECD Jobs Study (Part I: Labour Market Trends and Underlying Forces of Change). Paris.Google Scholar
  47. OECD (2002a) Intra-industry and intra-firm trade and the internationalisation of production, no: 71. Econ outlook 71(6):159–170Google Scholar
  48. OECD (2002b) Intra-industry and intra-firm trade and the internationalization of production. OECD Econ Outlook 71:159–170Google Scholar
  49. Perdikis N, Kerr WA (1998) Trade Theories and Empirical Evidence. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  50. Polaski SA, Ganesh Kumar S, McDonald MP, Robinson S (2008) India’s Trade Policy Choices. Carnegie Endowment, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Schiff M. and Winters A. (2003) Regional Integration and Development. World Bank 1–299Google Scholar
  52. Smith, A. (1776/1994) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  53. Srinivasan TN (1996) Post Uruguay round issues for Asian developing countries. Asian Dev Rev 14(1):1–28Google Scholar
  54. Stigler GJ (1951) The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. J Polit Econ 59(3):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stiglitz, J. (2012) How to Make the Best of the Long Malaise, Financial Times, August 9, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c864cd58-c1d1-11e0-bc71-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oXW1OeCD (accessed 20 May 2012)
  56. The Conference Board (2012) Global Economic Outlook 2012, http://www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm (accessed 20 May 2012)
  57. Trade DG (2007) Eurostat: Comext, Statistical Regime 4. DGFT European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  58. Vernon R (1966) International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Q J Econ 80(2):190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Viju C, Kerr WA (2011) Protectionism and Global Recession: Has the Link Been Broken? J World Trade 45(3):605–628Google Scholar
  60. Viju, C., Yeung, M.T. and Kerr, W.A. (2011) Post-Moratorium EU Regulation of Genetically Modified Products: Trade Concerns, CATPRN Commissioned Paper, No 2011–02, Canadian Agricultural Trade and Competitiveness Research Network, http://www.uoguelph.ca/catprn/PDF-CP/CP-2011-02-Viju.pdf (accessed 20 May 2012)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sangeeta Khorana
    • 1
  • Nicholas Perdikis
    • 1
  • William A. Kerr
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Management and BusinessAberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK
  2. 2.Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and EconomicsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations