IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331680.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effect of selected international developments on the Greek economy

Author

Listed:
  • Neofotistos, George C.
  • Tsigas, Marinos E.

Abstract

We use a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, based on the GTAP framework, to reveal how certain linkages and interactions affect Greece and neighboring countries, in a global context. In particular, the economy-wide effects on the Greek economy of a) China’s economic growth, b) Turkey’s economic growth, and c) the import tariff removals concomitant to the recent EU accession of Romania and Bulgaria, have been studied. Our analysis is based on aggregated data and parameters derived from the GTAP v6 database. The base year is 2001. We aggregated the 57 GTAP industries into 32 industries, 29 of which represent merchandise trade sectors. The analysis comprises five primary factors: land, unskilled labor, skilled labor, natural resources, and capital. Our findings suggest that China’s natural resources’ factor growth yields a positive impact on Greece, whereas growth in China’s capital, skilled and unskilled labor factors yields negative impacts to the Greek economy (although the overall sum is positive). Similar impact is manifested in the economies of South-European countries (with positive overall sum) and Bulgaria, Turkey and Albania (with negative overall sum for each of these countries). France, Germany, Rest of Europe, NAFTA, and Rest of Asia experience positive impacts only (with the exception of China’s natural resources factor growth on the UK economy and of China’s land factor growth on the NAFTA economies). Regarding specific Greek sectors, the Greek economy declines in 9 sectors, although 22 Greek sectors expand. Regarding Turkey, its economic growth has a positive impact on Greece, most of the European countries, and the rest of the world, with the exception of North East Asia and South Asia regions, which experience a negative impact. Overall, 18 Greek sectors expand. The economic impact of import barrier removals, following Romania’s and Bulgaria’s EU accession, on bilateral trade, income, welfare, and total imports/exports, on Greece, EU24 (that is, EU25 minus Greece), and the Rest of the World (ROW), show positive overall welfare effects, with total Greek exports increasing by 0.25% (due to exports to Romania and Bulgaria), total Greek imports increasing by 0.54%, and large output effects for Bulgaria and Romania.

Suggested Citation

  • Neofotistos, George C. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2008. "The effect of selected international developments on the Greek economy," Conference papers 331680, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331680/files/3798.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harris, Richard, 1984. "Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Small Open Economies with Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1016-1032, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernand Martin, 1991. "Measuring the Impact of Free Trade: Local Analysis versus Regional and National Models," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Don Fullerton & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2002. "Environmental Controls, Scarcity Rents, and Pre-existing Distortions," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 26, pages 504-522, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Lucy Rees & Rod Tyers, 2004. "On the Robustness of Short Run Gains from Trade Reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 474, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    4. Lee, Hiro & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2005. "The impact of the US safeguard measures on Northeast Asian producers: General equilibrium assessments," MPRA Paper 82288, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Jaime de Melo & David Tarr, 2015. "VERs under imperfect competition and foreign direct investment: A case study of the US–Japan auto VER," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Modeling Developing Countries' Policies in General Equilibrium, chapter 22, pages 461-483, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Cororaton, Caesar B., 1994. "Structural Adjustment Policy Experiments: The Use of Philippine CGE Models," Discussion Papers DP 1994-03, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    7. James Markusen, 2023. "Incorporating Theory-Consistent Endogenous Markups into Applied General-Equilibrium Models," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 8(2), pages 60-99, December.
    8. Robert C. Feenstra, 2007. "Globalization and Its Impact on Labour," wiiw Working Papers 44, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    9. Rod Tyers, 2015. "Service Oligopolies and Australia's Economy-Wide Performance," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 48(4), pages 333-356, December.
    10. Lewis, Jeffrey D. & Robinson, Sherman & Wang, Zhi, 1995. "Beyond the Uruguay Round: The implications of an Asian free trade area," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 35-90.
    11. Dirk Willenbockel, 2005. "The Price Normalisation Problem in General Equilibriun Models with Oligopoly Power: An Attempt at Perspective," GE, Growth, Math methods 0505002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Kaludura Abayasiri-Silva & Mark Horridge, 1998. "Economies of Scale and Imperfect Competition in an Applied General Equilibrium Model of the Australian Economy," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Kenneth J. Arrow & Yew-Kwang Ng & Xiaokai Yang (ed.), Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, chapter 14, pages 307-334, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Jayant Menon & Peter B. Dixon, 1994. "How Important is Intra-Industry Trade in Australia's Rapid Trade Growth?," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-110, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    14. Rod Tyers & Aaron Walker, 2016. "Quantifying Australia's ‘Three-Speed’ Boom," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 49(1), pages 20-43, March.
    15. Michael Funke & Ralf Ruhwedel, 2008. "Trade, product variety and welfare: a quantitative assessment for mainland China," China Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 203-212.
    16. Jaime de Melo & David Roland-Holst, 2015. "Industrial Organization and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from Korea," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Modeling Developing Countries' Policies in General Equilibrium, chapter 18, pages 385-404, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    18. John Baldwin & Wulong Gu, 2009. "The Impact of Trade on Plant Scale, Production-Run Length and Diversification," NBER Chapters, in: Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from Micro Data, pages 557-592, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Li, Jennifer Chung-I, 2003. "A Dynamic Recursive Analysis of A Carbon Tax Including Local Health Feedback," Conference papers 331085, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Delfin Go & Marna Kearney & Vijdan Korman & Sherman Robinson & Karen Thierfelder, 2010. "Wage Subsidy and Labour Market Flexibility in South Africa," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 1481-1502.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331680. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.