IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v34y2002i4p439-452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trading relations: is the roadmap from Lometo Cotonou correct?

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Nilsson

Abstract

One of the reasons behind the re-negotiation of the Lome Convention, resulting in the Cotonou Agreement, was the alleged inability of the trade provisions of Lome to increase the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries' market share of the European Union (EU) market. The Cotonou Agreement may lead to the more advanced ACPs being granted future market access to the EU under a generalized system of preferences (GSP), in conformity with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. To this end, this paper makes a comparative analysis of the effects of the EU's Lome Convention and GSP on exports of developing countries using a gravity type of model. The results indicate positive and statistically significant export effects of the both the Lome Convention and the GSP. The export effects are greater in case of the Lome Convention throughout the study period running from 1973 to 1992. In addition, the paper illustrates the EU country distribution of the export effects and shows that Belgium and The Netherlands are the EU countries that most have increased their imports from the developing countries under both the Lome Convention and the GSP.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Nilsson, 2002. "Trading relations: is the roadmap from Lometo Cotonou correct?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 439-452.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:34:y:2002:i:4:p:439-452
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840110046007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840110046007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamim Bayoumi & Barry Eichengreen, 1997. "Is Regionalism Simply a Diversion? Evidence from the Evolution of the EC and EFTA," NBER Chapters,in: Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements, NBER-EASE Volume 6, pages 141-168 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Alan Deardorff, 1998. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," NBER Chapters,in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 7-32 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Craig R. MacPhee, 1989. "A Synthesis of the GSP Study Programme," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 24(2), pages 190-234, July.
    4. Wang, Zhen Kun & Winters, L. Alan, 1991. "The Trading Potential of Eastern Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 610, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Grilli,Enzo R., 1993. "The European Community and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521385114, March.
    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. Maria Persson & Fredrik Wilhelmsson, 2016. "EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 16-53, January.
    2. Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor & Kaleb Girma Abreha, 2015. "Preferential Market Access, Foreign Aid and Economic Development," Economics Working Papers 2015-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    3. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2016. "Are Trade Preferences more Effective than Aid in Supporting Exports? Evidence from the ‘Everything But Arms’ Preference Scheme," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1146-1171, August.
    4. Agostino, Maria Rosaria & Aiello, Francesco & Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "Analyzing the Impact of Trade Preferences in Gravity Models. Does Aggregation Matter?," Working Papers 7294, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    5. Dinçer, Gönül, 2014. "Turkey’s Rising Imports from BRICS: A Gravity Model Approach," MPRA Paper 61979, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Salvador Gil-Pareja, 2011. "Do nonreciprocal preference regimes increase exports?," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1561, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    8. Mariarosaria Agostino & Francesco Trivieri, 2016. "European Wines Exports Towards Emerging Markets. The Role of Geographical Identity," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 233-256, June.
    9. Agostino, Mariarosaria & Trivieri, Francesco, 2014. "Geographical indication and wine exports. An empirical investigation considering the major European producers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 22-36.
    10. repec:eee:wdevel:v:102:y:2018:i:c:p:243-261 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    12. Cipollina, Maria & Laborde, David & Salvatici, Luca, 2013. "Do Preferential Trade Policies (Actually) Increase Exports? An analysis of EU trade policies," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150177, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Gil-Pareja, Salvador & Llorca-Vivero, Rafael & Martínez-Serrano, José Antonio, 2014. "Do nonreciprocal preferential trade agreements increase beneficiaries' exports?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 291-304.
    14. Gert-Jan M. Linders & Henri L.F. de Groot & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Peter Nijkamp, 2011. "Persistent Distance Decay Effects in International Trade," Chapters,in: International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume II, chapter 14 Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:v:34:y:2002:i:4:p:439-452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.