EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Persson, Maria; Wilhelmsson, Fredrik

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2482055

Cited by 21 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, a number of papers have used a direct approach to decompose the impact of policies on extensive and intensive trade margins, such as the number of products exported within a certain industry/category or exports concentration indexes (see Cadot et al ., ; Dennis and Shepherd, ; Persson and Wilhelmsson, ). The simple count of the product number, although transparent, is flawed by the assumption that products have the same economic weight, which is generally not the case.…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Raimondi¹,

Falco²,

Curzi³

et al. 2019

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a new detailed dataset on country‐product information on European Union (EU) Geographical Indications (GIs), we study the impact of this food quality policy on trade margins over the 1996–2014 period. We consider the effect of GIs on both intra‐ and extra‐EU trade margins (extensive and intensive), as well as on export (and import) unit values. Our main results show that GIs affect trade flows differently depending on whether GIs are produced by the exporter or importer country. The presence of GIs in the exporter country systematically exerts a positive trade effect on both the extensive and intensive trade margin. When registered only in the importer country, GIs seem to act weakly as a trade‐reducing measure, at least at the intensive trade margin. In addition, GIs positively affect export prices, consistent with the idea that GI products are perceived by consumers as higher quality goods. Importantly, extra‐EU trade margins react similarly to those on intra‐EU trade. These results have clear and interesting implications concerning the EU strategy of promoting the protection of GIs worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Raimondi¹,

Falco²,

Curzi³

et al. 2019

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EU's generous unilateral trade preferences also appear to have an adverse impact on export diversification in the region. Persson and Wilhelmsson (2016) notes that while the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) increased the ranges of export products for developing countries, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) preferences granted between 1989-2007 (Lomé IV-Cotonou) may have resulted in increased specialization.…”

Section: Africa's Relationship With the European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth by Destination: The Role of Trade in Africa’s Recent Growth Episode

Mullings

Mahabir

2018

World Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the period 1990-2009, Africa has experienced a distinct and favourable reversal in its growth fortunes in stark contrast to its performance in the preceding decades, leading to a variety of hypotheses seeking to explain the phenomenon. This paper presents both crosscountry and panel-data evidence on the causal factors driving the recent turnaround in Africa's growth and takes the unique approach of disaggregating the separate growth impacts of Africa's bilateral trade with: China, Europe and America. The empirical analysis presented in this paper suggests that the primary and most robust causal factors driving Africa's recent growth turnaround are private sector-and foreign direct investment. Although empirical evidence of the role of bilateral trade openness in Africa's recent growth emerges within a fixed effect estimation setting, these results are not as robust when endogeneity and other issues are fully accounted for. Among the three major bilateral partners, Africa's bilateral trade with China has been a relatively important factor spurring growth on the continent and especially so in resource-rich, oil producing and non-landlocked countries. The econometric results are not as supportive of growth-inducing effects of foreign aid. These findings emerge after applying a variety of panel data specifications to the data, including the recent fixed Effects Filtered (FEF) estimator introduced by Pesaran and Zhou (2014) and the dynamic panel Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimator, which allows for endogeneity between trade and growth.

show abstract

“…Comparing the relative trade creating effects of the USGSP and EUGSP for developing beneficiary countries, Davies and Nilsson () find that, excluding mineral fuels, EU preferential trade policies generate about twice as much trade as do corresponding US policies. Focusing on the general EUGSP policy, Thelle, Jeppesen, Gjodesen‐Lund, and Biesebroeck () find that trade preferences granted by the EU significantly boost developing countries' exports, although others studies find that the EU's non‐reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries do not encourage to beneficiaries' export diversification (Gamberoni, ; Persson & Wilhelmsson, ). Another study covering all LDCs concludes that the EBA has not had a positive effect on the export performance of EBA beneficiaries (Gradeva & Martínez‐Zarzoso, ).…”

Section: A Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of unilateral trade policies EBA and AGOA on African beneficiaries' exports using matching econometrics

Sorgho

Tharakan

2019

World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existing literature studying the impact of non‐reciprocal preferential trade agreements (NRPTAs) assumes implicitly NRPTAs are non‐randomly assigned without showing the evidence of that. Using a matching methodology, this paper investigates whether the “African Growth and Opportunity Act” (AGOA) and the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) unilateral trade concessions have had an impact, and in what magnitude, on the exports of African beneficiary countries in the light of the evidence of the non‐random nature (endogeneity) of NRPTAs. Methodologically, previous studies using the matching procedure focused on bi or multilateral trade agreements. Our work focuses on NRPTAs that depend only on donors' conditions. Accordingly, we show that for NRPTAs, gravity covariates cannot be used for the matching procedure. We propose to use political variables as determinants for obtaining non‐reciprocal trade preferences in order to address the endogenous nature of NRPTA assignment. Our main results confirm that a country becomes eligible for a NRPTA only when it meets certain conditions, defined by their donors, such as political stability and economic regulation (for AGOA), and freedom of expression and human development (for EBA). Results also show that both AGOA and EBA policies have had a positive impact on African beneficiary countries' exports to NRPTA's providers, even if the magnitude impact of EBA is significantly lower than that of AGOA.

show abstract

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Growth by Destination: The Role of Trade in Africa’s Recent Growth Episode

Assessing the impact of unilateral trade policies EBA and AGOA on African beneficiaries' exports using matching econometrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About