Skip to main content
Log in

Trade in Parts and Components and the Industrial Geography of Central and Eastern European Countries

  • Published:
Review of World Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growing inflows of FDI and the increasing integration of domestic firms into International Production Networks (IPNs) set up by EU-15 partners have yielded a rise in trade in parts and components for Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). As a consequence, new patterns of localization of industrial activities have been observed in the region since the mid-1990s. In this paper, I propose a comprehensive model of trade and production which tries to explain cross-country variations of sectoral output by comparative advantages (Ricardo, Heckscher–Ohlin) and agglomeration forces (home market effect, market potential), with a focus on the role played by trade in middle products. The empirical implementation reveals that the higher is the involvement in IPNs the larger is the domestic share of regional output. Comparative advantages are a crucial determinant of localization as opposed to agglomeration forces. I argue that these results can be interpreted as an assessment of the predictive power of two alternative trade theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amiti, M. (1998). New Trade Theories and Industrial Location in the EU: A Survey of Evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14 (2): 45–53.

  2. Behrens, K., A. Lamorgese, G. I. P. Ottaviano, and T. Tabuchi (2005). Testing the ‘Home Market Effect’ in a Multi-Country World. CORE Discussion Paper 2005/55. Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, Université Catholique de Louvain.

  3. Brülhart, M., and F. Trionfetti (2005). A Test of Trade Theories When Expenditure Is Home Biased. CEPR Discussion Paper 5097. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  4. Brülhart, M., M. Crozet, and P. Koenig (2004). Enlargement and the EU Periphery: The Impact of Changing Market Potential. The World Economy 27 (6): 853–875.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carstensen, K., and F. Toubal (2004). Foreign Direct Investment in Central Eastern European Countries: A Dynamic Panel Analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics 32 (1): 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Choudhri, E. U., and D. Hakura (2001). International Trade in Manufactured Products: A Ricardo–Heckscher–Ohlin Explanation with Monopolistic Competition. IMF Working Paper 01/41. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C.

  7. Davis, D. R., and D. Weinstein (1996). Does Economic Geography Matter for International Specialization? NBER Working Paper 5706. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  8. Davis, D. R., and D. Weinstein (1999). Economic Geography and Regional Production Structure: An Empirical Investigation. European Economic Review 43 (2): 379–407.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, D. R., and D. Weinstein (2003). Market Access, Economic Geography and Comparative Advantage: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of International Economics 59 (1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, D. R., D. Weinstein, S. C. Bradford, and K. Shimpo (1997). Using International and Japanese Regional Data to Determine When the Factor Abundance Theory of Trade Works. American Economic Review 87 (3): 421–446.

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Simone, G. (2007). Specialisation, Localisation, and Trade Value in the Wake of Cross-Border Production Sharing. The Central Eastern European Countries’ Case. International Review of Economics 54 (1): 106-128.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dixit, A. K., and J. E. Stiglitz (1977). Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. American Economic Review 67 (3): 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Forslid, R., J. I. Haaland, and K. H. Ulltveit-Moe (2002). A U-Shaped Europe? A Simulation Study of Industrial Location. Journal of International Economics 57 (2): 271–297.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fujita, M., P. Krugman, and A. J.Venables (1999). The Spatial Economy. Cities, Countries and International Trade. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  15. Harrigan, J. (1997). Technology, Factor Supplies, and International Specialization: Estimating the Neoclassical Model. American Economic Review 87 (4): 475–494.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harris, C. D. (1954). The Market as a Factor in the Localisation of Industry in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44 (4): 315–348.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Head, C. K., and T. Mayer (2003). The Empirics of Agglomeration and Trade. CEPR Discussion Paper 3985. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  18. Head, C. K., and T. Mayer (2004). The Empirics of Agglomeration and Trade. In J. V. Henderson and J. F. Thisse (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.

  19. Helpman, E., and P. Krugman (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  20. Hildebrandt, A., and J. Wörz (2004). Determinants of Industrial Location Patterns in CEECs. WIIW Working Papers 32. The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, Vienna.

  21. Hoekman, B., and S. Djankov (1997). Determinants of the Export Structure of Countries in Central and Eastern Europe. World Bank Economic Review 11 (3): 471–487.

  22. Jones, R. W., and H. Kierzkowski (2001). A Framework for Fragmentation. In S. W. Arndt and H. Kierzkowski (eds.), Fragmentation. New Production Patterns in the World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  23. Jones, R. W., and H. Kierzkowski (2003). International Trade and Agglomeration: An Alternative Framework. Unpublished manuscript.

  24. Jones, R. W., and H. Kierzkowski (2005). International Fragmentation and the New Economic Geography. North American Journal of Economics and Finance 16 (1): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones, R. W., H. Kierzkowski, and C. Lurong (2005). What Does Evidence Tell Us about Fragmentation and Outsourcing? International Review of Economics and Finance 14 (3): 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kaminski, B., and F. Ng (2001). Trade and Production Fragmentation: Central European Economies in EU Networks of Production and Marketing. Policy Research Working Paper Series 2611. The World Bank, Development Research Group, Washington D.C.

  27. Krugman, P. (1980). Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and Patterns of Trade. American Economic Review 70 (5): 950–959.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Overman, H. G., S. Redding, and A. J. Venables (2003). The Economic Geography of Trade, Production and Income: A Survey of Empirics. In E. K. Choi and J. Harrigan (eds.), Handbook of International Trade. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  29. Redding, S., and A. J. Venables (2004). Economic Geography and International Inequality. Journal of International Economics 62 (1): 53–82.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Trefler, D. (1993). International Factor Price Differences: Leontief Was Right! Journal of Political Economy 101 (6): 961–987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Trefler, D. (1995). The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries. American Economic Review 85 (5): 1029–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ulltveit-Moe, K. H., H. G. Overman, and A. J. Venables (2000). Comparative Advantage and Economic Geography: Estimating the Location of Production in the EU. CEPR Discussion Paper 2618. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  33. Yeats, A. J. (1998). Just How Big Is Global Production Sharing? In S. W. Arndt and H. Kierzkowski (eds.), Fragmentation. New Production Patterns in the World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianfranco De Simone.

Additional information

JEL no.

F10, F12, F14, F15

About this article

Cite this article

De Simone, G. Trade in Parts and Components and the Industrial Geography of Central and Eastern European Countries. Rev World Econ 144, 428–457 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-008-0155-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-008-0155-y

Keywords

Navigation