Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Chapter

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Aiello F, Agostino MR, Cardamone P (2006) Reconsidering the impact of trade preferences in gravity models. Does aggregation matter? TradeAG Working Paper.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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).
  4. Ashenfelter O, Harmon C, Oosterbeek, H (1999) A review of estimates of the schooling/earnings relationship, with tests for publication bias. Labour Economics 6:453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J of International Economics 71:72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin R (2006) The Euro’s trade effects. European Central Bank Working Paper n. 594.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper n. 12516.Google Scholar
  8. Burger MJ, van Oort FG, Linders GM (2009) On the specification of the gravity model of trade: zeros, excess zeros and zero-inflated estimation. Spat Econ Anal 4(2):167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caporale GM, Rault C, Sova R, Sova A (2009) On the bilateral trade effects of free trade agreements between the EU-15 and the CEEC-4 countries. Rev of World Economy 145:189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Card D, Krueger AB (1995) Time-series minimum-wage studies: a meta-analysis. Am Econ Rev 85:238–43.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Cipollina M, Salvatici L (2010a) The impact of European Union agricultural preferences. J of Econ Policy Reform 13:87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cipollina M, Salvatici L (2010b) Reciprocal trade agreements in gravity models: A Meta-Analysis. Rev of International Economics 18:63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demaria F (2009) Empirical analysis on the impact of the EU GSP scheme on the agricultural sector. Dissertation, University of Calabria.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, London.Google Scholar
  19. Francois J, Hoekman B, Manchin M (2006) Preference erosion and multilateral trade liberalization. The World Bank Econ Rev 20:197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glass GV, McGaw B, Lee Smith M (1981) Meta-Analysis in social research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y (2008) Estimating trade flows: trading partners and trading volumes. Q J of Economics 123(2):441–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Med 21:1539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Manchin M (2006) Preference utilisation and tariff reduction in EU imports from ACP countries. The World Economy 29:1243–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin W, Pham SC (2008) Estimating the gravity equation when zero trade flows are frequent. World Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Martínez-Zarzoso I, Nowak-Lehmann DF, Horsewood N (2009) Are regional trading agreements beneficial? Static and dynamic panel gravity models. N Am J of Economics and Finance 20(1):46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nielsen CP (2003) Regional and preferential trade agreements: a literature review and identification of future steps. Fodevareokonomisk Institut, Copenhagen, Report n. 155.Google Scholar
  28. Nilsson L (2002) Trading relations: is the roadmap from Lomé to Cotonou correct? Appl Economics 34:439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nilsson L (2009) Small trade flows and preference utilization. Mimeo, European Commission, DG Trade.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Oguledo VI, MacPhee CR (1994) Gravity models: a reformulation and an application to discriminatory trade arrangements. Appl Economics 26:107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Péridy N (2005) The trade effects of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership: what are the lessons for ASEAN countries? J of Asian Economics 16:125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Proenca I, Fontoura MP, Martìnez-Galàn E (2008) Trade in the enlarged European Union: a new approach on trade potential. Portuguese Econ J 7:205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rose AK, Stanley TD (2005) Meta-analysis of the effect of common currencies on international trade. J of Econ Surveys 19:347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santos-Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Statist 88:641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siliverstovs B, Schumacher D (2009) Estimating gravity equations: to log or not to log? Empirical Economics 36:645–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanley TD (2005) Beyond publication bias. J of Econ Surveys 19:309–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stanley TD, Jarrell SB (2005) Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. J of Econ Surveys 19:299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (2000) Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Management and Social SciencesUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly

Personalised recommendations