IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332498.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade liberalization gains under different trade theories: A case study for Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Olekseyuk, Zoryana
  • Balistreri, Edward J.

Abstract

Given Ukraine's difficult political and economic situation, the EU focuses its efforts on providing financial and economic support as well as accelerating the establishment of the Association Agreement (AA) incorporating the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA). To analyze a DCFTA between Ukraine and the EU we develop a GTAP 8.1 based multi-regional CGE model with three different setups. In addition to the standard model specification of trade based on the Armington assumption of regionally differentiated goods, we implement monopolistic competition and competitive selection of heterogeneous firms suggested by Krugman [1980] and Melitz [2003]. This allows us to capture trade growth in new varieties and changes in aggregate productivity due to within industry reallocation of resources. The core results indicate substantial benefit for Ukraine whereas the gains for the EU are quite small. A comparison of welfare results for Ukraine across the different structural assumptions shows that the impact is much higher under the Armington assumption than under either the Krugman or Melitz trade formulations. Deep integration with the EU intensifies import competition in the increasing returns sectors, while inducing a movement of resources in to Ukraine's traditional export sectors which are produced under constant returns. The indication is that traditional CGE models may overstate the gains from the DCFTA between Ukraine and EU. Consistent with Balistreri et al. (2010) and Arkolakas et al. (2012) the gains from trade can be lower under an assumption of monopolistic competition if trade reduces the set of goods produced. This is our finding for Ukraine. We caution, however, that our model does not include capital flows so EU firms supply Ukraine's markets on a cross-border bases. Allowing for capital flows might change the story if EU firms were to engage in FDI, which would increase the number of EU varieties while increasing the demand for workers in Ukraine.

Suggested Citation

  • Olekseyuk, Zoryana & Balistreri, Edward J., 2014. "Trade liberalization gains under different trade theories: A case study for Ukraine," Conference papers 332498, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332498/files/6895.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. David L. Hummels & Georg Schaur, 2013. "Time as a Trade Barrier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2935-2959, December.
    3. Peter Dixon & Michael Jerie & Maureen Rimmer, 2016. "Modern Trade Theory for CGE Modelling: The Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 1(1), pages 1-110, June.
    4. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2003. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1268-1290, September.
    5. Balistreri, Edward J. & Hillberry, Russell H. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2011. "Structural estimation and solution of international trade models with heterogeneous firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 95-108, March.
    6. Richard E. Baldwin & Rikard Forslid, 2010. "Trade Liberalization with Heterogeneous Firms," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 161-176, May.
    7. James Markusen & Thomas F. Rutherford & David Tarr, 2017. "Trade and direct investment in producer services and the domestic market for expertise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 19, pages 439-458, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    9. Marc J. Melitz & Stephen J. Redding, 2015. "New Trade Models, New Welfare Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 1105-1146, March.
    10. Daniel Trefler, 2004. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 870-895, September.
    11. Rutherford, Thomas F, 1999. "Applied General Equilibrium Modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modeling Framework and Syntax," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-46, October.
    12. Gregory Corcos & Massimo Del Gatto & Giordano Mion & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2012. "Productivity and Firm Selection: Quantifying the ‘New’ Gains from Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(561), pages 754-798, June.
    13. Maryla Maliszewska & Irina Orlova & Svitlana Taran, 2009. "Deep Integration with the EU and its Likely Impact on Selected ENP Countries and Russia," CASE Network Reports 0088, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    14. Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2014. "Poverty effects of Russia's WTO accession: Modeling “real” households with endogenous productivity effects," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: APPLIED TRADE POLICY MODELING IN 16 COUNTRIES Insights and Impacts from World Bank CGE Based Projects, chapter 12, pages 287-306, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. David Hummels, 2007. "Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of Globalization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 131-154, Summer.
    16. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
    17. Balistreri, Edward J. & Hillberry, Russell H. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2010. "Trade and welfare: Does industrial organization matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 85-87, November.
    18. Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Trade liberalization, product variety and growth in a small open economy: a quantitative assessment," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 17, pages 389-414, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Aw, Bee Yan & Chen, Xiaomin & Roberts, Mark J., 2001. "Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 51-86, October.
    20. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    21. Robert C. Feenstra, 2010. "Measuring the gains from trade under monopolistic competition," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, February.
    22. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 2012. "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 94-130, February.
    23. Miriam Frey & Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2014. "A general equilibrium evaluation of the fiscal costs of trade liberalization in Ukraine," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(3), pages 505-540, August.
    24. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2016. "Modeling of FDI in business services: Additional effects in case of Ukraine's European integration," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 1010-1043, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olekseyuk, Zoryana, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the Importance of FDI," Conference papers 332588, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the importance of FDI," EcoMod2015 8391, EcoMod.
    3. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2016. "Modeling of FDI in business services: Additional effects in case of Ukraine's European integration," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 1010-1043, October.

    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. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2016. "Modeling of FDI in business services: Additional effects in case of Ukraine's European integration," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 1010-1043, October.
    2. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the importance of FDI," EcoMod2015 8391, EcoMod.
    3. Balistreri, Edward J. & Tarr, David G., 2020. "Comparison of deep integration in the Melitz, Krugman and Armington models: The case of The Philippines in RCEP," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 255-271.
    4. Olekseyuk, Zoryana, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the Importance of FDI," Conference papers 332588, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Balistreri, Edward J. & Hillberry, Russell H. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2011. "Structural estimation and solution of international trade models with heterogeneous firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 95-108, March.
    6. Balistreri, Edward J. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2013. "Computing General Equilibrium Theories of Monopolistic Competition and Heterogeneous Firms," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1513-1570, Elsevier.
    7. Melitz, Marc J. & Redding, Stephen J., 2014. "Heterogeneous Firms and Trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 1-54, Elsevier.
    8. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 197-261, Elsevier.
    9. Balistreri, Edward J. & Tarr, David G., 2017. "Market Structure and the impact of RCEP in The Philippines: What are the Differences between Melitz, Krugman and Armington Models," Conference papers 332835, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Balistreri, Edward J. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2012. "Subglobal carbon policy and the competitive selection of heterogeneous firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 190-197.
    11. Christoph Boehringer & Edward Balistreri & Thomas Rutherford, 2018. "Quantifying Disruptive Trade Policies," Working Papers V-415-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2018.
    12. Feenstra, Robert C., 2018. "Restoring the product variety and pro-competitive gains from trade with heterogeneous firms and bounded productivity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 16-27.
    13. Balistreri, Edward J. & Tarr, David G., 2016. "Comparison of Welfare Results from Trade Liberalization in the Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models: Impacts with features of real economies," Conference papers 332773, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Ehsan Choudhri & Antonio Marasco, 2013. "Heterogeneous Productivity and the Gains from Trade and FDI," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 339-360, April.
    15. Hsieh, Chang-Tai & Li, Nicholas & Ossa, Ralph & Yang, Mu-Jeung, 2020. "Accounting for the new gains from trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    16. Edwin L.-C. Lai & Haichao Fan & Han Steffan Qi, 2020. "Global gains from reduction in trade costs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(1), pages 313-345, July.
    17. Stefano Bolatto & Massimo Sbracia, 2016. "Deconstructing the Gains from Trade: Selection of Industries vs Reallocation of Workers," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 344-363, May.
    18. Ardelean, Adina & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr, 2010. "Domestic productivity and variety gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 280-291, March.
    19. Nocco, Antonella & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P. & Salto, Matteo, 2019. "Geography, competition, and optimal multilateral trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 145-161.
    20. David Comerford & José V Rodríguez Mora & Beata Javorcik, 2019. "The gains from economic integration," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 34(98), pages 201-266.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:332498. 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.