International Economics and Economic Policy

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 501–522 | Cite as

MERCOSUR in gravity: an accounting approach to analyzing its trade effects

  • Frederik StenderEmail author
Original Paper


This paper aims at unveiling the roots of integration-induced trade effects for MERCOSUR. For this purpose, its methodology combines previous dummy-variables- and continuous variable approaches to identifying trade creation and trade diversion effects in a gravity model framework. Applying a straightforward accounting exercise to the integration-induced trade effects which are found for MERCOSUR en bloc, two results are central: Firstly, with sectoral exceptions, I generally identify pure trade creating effects on the import side but also find trade diversion with associate countries when refining extra-bloc country status. Secondly, while extra-bloc import growth seems to be driven predominantly by non-tariff determinants, trade creation in pooled commodity imports for the largest fraction stems from differences in the tariff treatment between trading partners.


Gravity model of trade Regional economic integration Trade creation and trade diversion Tariff margin Panel data 

JEL classification

F13 F14 F15 



I am indebted to Joscha Beckmann and Ansgar Belke for valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Anderson JE (1979) A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation. Am Econ Rev 69(1):106–116Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93(1):170–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2004) Trade Costs. J Econ Lit 42(3):691–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer W, Silva P (2014) Mercosul: Its Successes and Failures During Its First Two Decades. Lat Am Bus Rev 15(3–4):193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2004) Economic Determinants of Free Trade Agreements. J Int Econ 64(1):29–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do Free Trade Agreements Actually Increase Members’ International Trade. J Int Econ 71(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin R, Di Nino V (2006) Euros and Zeros: The Common Currency Effect on Trade in New Goods, NBER Working Paper 12673Google Scholar
  8. Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for Dummies and Dummies for Gravity Equations, NBER Working Papers 12516Google Scholar
  9. Bechle K (2011) Kein Auslaufmodell: 20 Jahre MERCOSUR. GIGA Focus Lateinamerika 3:1–8Google Scholar
  10. Bektasoglu B, Engelbert T, Brockmeier M (2017) The Effect of Aggregation Bias: An NTB-modelling Analysis of Turkey’s Agro-food Trade with the EU. World Econ 40(10):2255–2276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belke A, Gros D (2002) Monetary Integration in the Southern Cone. N Am J Econ Finance 13(3):323–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belke A, Spies J (2008) Enlarging the EMU to the East: What Effects on Trade? Empirica 35(4):369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergstrand JH (1985) The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence. Rev Econ Stat 67(3):474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bergstrand JH (1989) The Generalised Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-proportions Theory in International Trade. Rev Econ Stat 71(1):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardamone P (2007) A Survey of the Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements Using Gravity Models. Economia Internazionale / International Economics 60(4):421–473Google Scholar
  16. Cardamone P (2011) Trade Impact of European Union Preferences: An Analysis with Monthly Data. In: De Benedictis L, Salvatici L (eds) The Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies: An Analysis Through Gravity Models. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrère C (2006) Revisiting the Effects of Regional Trade Agreements on Trade Flows with Proper Specification of the Gravity Model. Eur Econ Rev 50(2):223–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carrère C, de Melo J, Tumurchudur B (2010) Disentangling Market Access Effects of Preferential Trading Arrangements with an Application for ASEAN Members under an ASEAN–EU FTA. World Econ 33(1):42–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang K, Hayakawa K (2010) Border Barriers in Agricultural Trade and the Impact of Their Elimination: Evidence from East Asia. Dev Econ 48(2):232–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheong J, Kwak DW, Tang KK (2014) The WTO Puzzle, Multilateral Resistance Terms and Multicollinearity. Appl Econ Lett 21(13):928–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cipollina M, Salvatici L (2011) Trade Impact of European Union Preferences. In: De Benedictis L, Salvatici L (eds) The Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies: An Analysis Through Gravity Models. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Cipollina M, Laborde D, Salvatici L (2013) Do Preferential Trade Policies (Actually) Increase Exports? An Analysis of EU Trade Policies, Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 Annual Meeting, 4–6 August, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Cipollina M, De Benedictis L, Salvatici L, Vicarelli C (2016) Policy Measurement and Multilateral Resistance in Gravity Models, MPRA Paper No. 75255Google Scholar
  24. Coulibaly S (2009) Evaluating the Trade Effect of Developing Regional Trade Agreements: A Semi-parametric Approach. J Econ Integration 24(4):709–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cuenca García E, Navarro Pabsdorf M, Gómez Herrera E (2013) The Gravity Model Analysis: An Application on MERCOSUR Trade Flows. J Econ Policy Reform 16(4):336–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Benedictis L, Taglioni D (2011) The Gravity Model in International Trade. In: De Benedictis L, Salvatici L (eds) The Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies: An Analysis Through Gravity Models. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deardorff AV (1995) Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neo-classic World? NBER Working Paper 5377Google Scholar
  28. Deardorff AV, Stern RM (1997) Measurement of Non-tariff Barriers, OECD Economics Department Working Papers 179Google Scholar
  29. Eaton J, Kortum SS, Sotelo S (2012) International Trade: Linking Micro and Macro, NBER Working Paper 17864Google Scholar
  30. Egger PH, Wamser G (2013a) Effects of the Endogenous Scope of Preferentialism on International Goods Trade. The B.E. J Econ Anal Policy 13(2):709–731Google Scholar
  31. Egger PH, Wamser G (2013b) Multiple Faces of Preferential Market Access: Their Causes and Consequences. Econ Policy 28(73):143–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eichengreen B (1998) Does Mercosur Need a Single Currency? NBER Working Paper 6821Google Scholar
  33. Estevadeordal A, Goto J, Saez R (2001) The New Regionalism in the Americas: The Case of MERCOSUR. J Econ Integration 16(2):180–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. European Commission (2014) Eurostat. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  35. Fugazza M, Nicita A (2013) The Direct and Relative Effects of Preferential Market Access. J Int Econ 89(2):357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ghosh S, Yamarik S (2004) Are Regional Trading Arrangements Trade Creating? An Application of Extreme Bounds Analysis. J Int Econ 63(2):369–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gómez-Herrera E (2013) Comparing Alternative Methods to Estimate Gravity Models of Bilateral Trade. Empir Econ 44(3):1087–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hayakawa K, Kimura F, Nabeshima K (2014) Non-conventional Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Do They Enhance International Trade? J Appl Econ 17(1):113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayakawa K, Ito T, Kimura F (2016) Trade Creation Effects of Regional Trade Agreements: Tariff Reduction versus Non-tariff Barrier Removal. Rev Dev Econ 20(1):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Head K, Mayer T (2013) Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and Cookbook, CEPII Working Paper No. 2013-27Google Scholar
  41. Helpman E (1987) Imperfect Competition and International Trade: Evidence from Fourteen Industrial Countries. J Jpn Int Econ 1(1):62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Helpman E, Melitz MJ, Rubenstein Y (2008) Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes. Q J Econ 123(2):441–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoekman B, Nicita A (2011) Trade Policy, Trade Costs, and Developing Country Trade. World Dev 39(12):2069–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hornok C (2011) Gravity or Dummies? The Limits of Identification in Gravity Estimations, CeFiG Working Papers 15Google Scholar
  45. International Monetary Fund (2014) World Economic Outlook Database. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  46. Kennedy PE (1981) Estimation with Correctly Interpreted Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations. Am Econ Rev 71(4):801Google Scholar
  47. Leipziger DM, Frischtak C, Kharas HJ, Normand JF (1997) MERCOSUR: Integration and Industrial Policy. World Econ 20(5):585–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Low P, Piermartini R, Richtering J (2005) Multilateral Solutions to the Erosion of Non-reciprocal Preferences in NAMA, ERSD Working Paper 2005–05, World Trade OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  49. Magee CSP (2008) New Measures of Trade Creation and Trade Diversion. J Int Econ 72(2):349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martínez-Zarzoso I, Nowak-Lehmann F, Horsewood N (2009) Are Regional Trading Agreements Beneficial? Static and Dynamic Panel Gravity Models. N Am J Econ Finance 20(1):46–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin-Mayoral F, Morán Carofilis G, Cajas Guijarro J (2016) The Effects of Integration Agreements in Western Hemisphere Trade, 1970-2014. J Int Trade Econ Dev 25(5):724–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mátyás L (1997) Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model. World Econ 20(3):363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moncarz P, Vaillant M (2010) Who Wins in South-South Trade Agreements? New Evidence for MERCOSUR. J Appl Econ 13(2):305–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Organization of American States (2014) Foreign Trade Information System. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  55. Pöyhönen P (1963) A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade between Countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch 90:93–99Google Scholar
  56. Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The Log of Gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Soloaga I, Winters LA (2001) Regionalism in the Nineties: What Effect on Trade. N Am J Econ Finance 12(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. The Twentieth Century Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. UN Comtrade (2014) International Trade Statistics Database. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  60. Urata S, Okabe M (2014) Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of Regional Trade Agreements: A Product-level Analysis. World Econ 37(2):267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaillant M (2005) MERCOSUR: Southern Integration under Construction. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 2:52–75Google Scholar
  62. Vaillant M, Vaillant P (2014) European Union-Mercosur Negotiations: A Return to Uncertainties. Lat Am Bus Rev 15(3–4):337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Viner J (1950) The Customs Union Issue. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. World Bank (2014a) World Development Indicators. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  65. World Bank (2014b) World Integrated Trade Solution. Accessed April 2014 (various dates)
  66. World Trade Organization (2008) Protocol of Montevideo on Trade in Services in the MERCOSUR – Report by the Secretariat. Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ruhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations