IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331834.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

EU-India Bilateral FTA: Potential Implications for the Excluded Low-Income Economies in Asia and Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Raihan, Selim

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis on welfare, macroeconomic and trade impacts on a number of low-income economies as a result of a proposed bilateral FTA deal between the EU and India. A global general equilibrium modelling technique is applied for the analysis. A simulation of a scenario depicting a full FTA between India and EU is conducted. It appears that the EU-India FTA would result in welfare gains for both India and the EU. In absolute terms, the gains of EU would be much higher than that of India. However, in terms of share in GDP the gains of India would be much large than that of EU. India’s welfare gain is mainly driven by the gain in terms of trade, whereas, EU’s welfare gain is primarily because of gain in allocative efficiency. All the low-income economies under consideration would experience loss in welfare, and the welfare losses for the South Asian countries are much higher than the other low income economies in Asia and Africa. Bangladesh would appear to experience largest loss in welfare in absolute value, whereas rest of South Asia would incur largest loss in terms of share in GDP. The welfare losses of these low-income economies are mainly driven by the loss in terms of trade. However, in general, the extents of welfare loss in terms of share in their GDP for most of these countries are not very high. Most of these lowincome countries would also experience loss in real GDP and loss in exports. For rest of South Asia, the loss in real GDP is as high as 0.17 percent and loss in exports is as high as 1.32 percent. Other South Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka would also experience loss in exports by more than 0.9 percent. However, for most of the other countries, the loss in real GDP and loss in exports are not very large. Most of the low income countries under consideration would experience fall in exports both in the EU and Indian market mainly because of loss in preferences and diversion of trade in the EU and Indian market. However, the pattern of export loss is different for different countries. Countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan would suffer from larger export losses in the EU market compared to the Indian market whereas for Sri Lanka and rest of South Asia the impacts will be just the opposite. Most of the other low-income countries would however experience larger loss in exports in the EU market. The product wise figures suggest that Asian low-income countries’ loss in exports in the EU market will be dominated by the loss in exports of textile and wearing apparels. Most of the African countries would however experience loss in exports of agricultural and agro-processing products in the EU market. In the Indian market, Sri Lanka and rest of South Asia would experience loss in exports in a number of mineral and manufacturing products. Bangladesh’s loss in exports in the Indian market would be primarily the loss in exports of chemicals, rubber and plastics products. Most of the African countries would incur loss in exports of oil, minerals and mineral products in the Indian market. The simulation results in general suggest that the impacts of the EU-India FTA on most of the excluded low-income economies are not very large. It should however be mentioned that the impacts, as derived from the simulation results, are static in nature and the dynamic impacts could be much larger than the static impacts. For example, though the static loss in preference for Bangladesh’s exports of textile and clothing in the EU market might appear to be small, such loss in preference might result in long term loss in competitiveness and thus the dynamic losses could be much larger than the static losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Raihan, Selim, 2009. "EU-India Bilateral FTA: Potential Implications for the Excluded Low-Income Economies in Asia and Africa," Conference papers 331834, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331834/files/4338.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-7.
    2. Hertel, Thomas & Hummels, David & Ivanic, Maros & Keeney, Roman, 2007. "How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 611-635, July.
    3. Josling, Timothy E. & Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 2004. "Food Regulation And Trade: Toward A Safe And Open Global System -- An Overview And Synopsis," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20008, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Linda Calvin & Barry Krissoff & William Foster, 2008. "Measuring the Costs and Trade Effects of Phytosanitary Protocols: A U.S.–Japanese Apple Example," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 120-135.
    5. Otsuki, Tsunehiro & Wilson, John S. & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2001. "Saving two in a billion: : quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 495-514, October.
    6. Timothy E. Josling & Donna Roberts & David Orden, 2004. "Food Regulation and Trade: Toward a Safe and Open Global System," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 347, October.
    7. Everett B. Peterson & David Orden, 2008. "Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 321-335.
    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. Karov, Vuko & Roberts, Donna & Grant, Jason H. & Peterson, Everett B., 2009. "A Preliminary Empirical Assessment of the Effect of Phytosanitary Regulations on US Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Imports," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49345, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Grant, Jason & Arita, Shawn, 2017. "Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures: Assessment, Measurement, and Impact," Commissioned Papers 259417, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    7. Xiong, Bo, 2012. "Three essays on non-tariff measures and the gravity equation approach to trade," ISU General Staff Papers 201201010800003536, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Xiong, Bo & Beghin, John C., 2011. "Disentangling the Demand-enhancing Effect and Trade-cost Effect of Technical Measures in Agricultural Trade among OECD countries," 2011: Agricultural Price Volatility, Trade Policy and Food Security in Developing Countries, December 2011, St. Petersburg, Florida 116898, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    9. -, 2010. "Experiencias de articulación entre los sectores público y privado para la implementación de tratados de libre comercio," Documentos de Proyectos 3849, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    10. Ronen, Eyal, 2017. "The Trade-Enhancing Effect Of Non-Tariff Measures On Virgin Olive Oil," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 5(3), July.
    11. Marette Stéphan, 2016. "Non-Tariff Measures When Alternative Regulatory Tools Can Be Chosen," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Sampath Jayasinghe & John C. Beghin & Giancarlo Moschini, 2017. "Determinants Of World Demand For U.S. Corn Seeds: The Role Of Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 17, pages 309-320, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Grant, Jason & Peterson, Everett & Ramniceanu, Radu, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of SPS Regulations on U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Exports," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-20.
    14. Rickard, Bradley J. & Lei, Lei, 2010. "How important are sanitary and phytosanitary barriers in international markets for fresh fruit?," Working Papers 126974, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    15. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 1-7.
    16. Chengyan Yue & John Beghin & Helen H. Jensen, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent Of Technical Barriers To Trade With Imperfect Substitution And Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 9, pages 151-164, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Grundke, Robert & Moser, Christoph, 2019. "Hidden protectionism? Evidence from non-tariff barriers to trade in the United States," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 143-157.
    18. John C. Beghin & Bo Xiong, 2016. "Economic Effects of Standard-Like Nontariff Measures: Analytical and Methodological Dimensions," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp569, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    19. Schlueter, Simon W. & Wieck, Christine & Heckelei, Thomas, 2009. "Regulatory SPS instruments in meat trade," Discussion Papers 56972, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Hobbs, Jill E., 2010. "Public and Private Standards for Food Safety and Quality: International Trade Implications," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, May.

    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:331834. 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.