Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature
The gravity model is used frequently to estimate the impact of European Union (EU) Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA) on trade flows. Because of differences in the datasets, sample sizes and independent variables employed, existing studies report very different estimates. This chapter reviews and analyses a large number of results using Meta-Analysis (MA) to provide pooled estimates of the effect of PTA on bilateral trade, based on fixed and random effects models. We test the estimation results for sensitivity to alternative specifications and different control variables. After filtering out potential biases, the MA confirms our expectations of a robust and positive effect of PTA.
- Aiello F, Agostino MR, Cardamone P (2006) Reconsidering the impact of trade preferences in gravity models. Does aggregation matter? TradeAG Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Aiello F, Cardamone P (2010) Analysing the effectiveness of the EBA initiative by using a gravity model. Pue&Piec Working Paper n. 10/7.Google Scholar
- Aiello F, Demaria F (2009) Do trade preferential agreements enhance the exports of developing countries? Evidence from the EU GSP. PRIN PUE&PIEC 2007 Working Paper n. 2009/18 (available via http://www.ecostat.unical.it/anania/PUE&PIEC%20Working%20Papers.htm).
- Baldwin R (2006) The Euro’s trade effects. European Central Bank Working Paper n. 594.Google Scholar
- Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper n. 12516.Google Scholar
- Card D, Krueger AB (1995) Time-series minimum-wage studies: a meta-analysis. Am Econ Rev 85:238–43.Google Scholar
- Cardamone P (2007) A survey of the assessments of the effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements using gravity models. International Economics 60(4):421–473.Google Scholar
- Cardamone P (2011) The effect of preferential trade agreements on monthly fruit exports to the European Union. Eur Rev of Agric Economics, doi: 10.1093/erae/jbq052.Google Scholar
- Cipollina M, Laborde D, Salvatici L (2010) Do preferential trade policies (actually) increase exports? A comparison between EU and US trade policies. Paper presented at ETSG 2010 in Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–11 September.Google Scholar
- Demaria F (2009) Empirical analysis on the impact of the EU GSP scheme on the agricultural sector. Dissertation, University of Calabria.Google Scholar
- Engel C (2002) Comment on Anderson and van Wincoop. In: Collins S, Rodrik D (eds) Brookings trade forum 2001. The Brookings Institution, Washington.Google Scholar
- Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, London.Google Scholar
- Glass GV, McGaw B, Lee Smith M (1981) Meta-Analysis in social research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
- Linders GJM, de Groot HLF (2006) Estimation of the gravity equation in the presence of zero flows, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2006-072/3.Google Scholar
- Martin W, Pham SC (2008) Estimating the gravity equation when zero trade flows are frequent. World Bank.Google Scholar
- Nielsen CP (2003) Regional and preferential trade agreements: a literature review and identification of future steps. Fodevareokonomisk Institut, Copenhagen, Report n. 155.Google Scholar
- Nilsson L (2009) Small trade flows and preference utilization. Mimeo, European Commission, DG Trade.Google Scholar
- Nilsson L, Matsson N (2009) Truths and myths about the openness of EU trade policy and the use of EU trade preferences. Working Paper http://trade.ec.eu.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/july/tradoc_143993.pdf. Accessed 2009.
- Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (2000) Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar