Are Regional Trading Partners "Natural"?
A central statement of the theory of natural trading partners is that preferential trading with regional trading partners is less likely to be trade diverting and therefore geographically proximate partners are to be considered "natural" partners for preferential arrangements. This paper examines this question empirically. The analytical framework involves a general equilibrium model of preferential trade and an econometric model with tight links to this theory. This framework is used to implement tests of the natural trading partners hypothesis using U.S. trade data for the years 196495: Welfare changes that would result from preferential tariff reductions by the United States against various trading partners are first estimated, and correlations with bilateral "distance" measures (with and without controls for income levels) are then examined. Since the argument for "natural" trading partners is based on the greater likelihood of geographically proximate countries to be more significant trading partners, correlations between the welfare change estimates and bilateral trade volume are examined as well. Both geographic proximity and trade volume are found to have no effect. Thus this paper is unable to find any support for the natural trading partners theory in U.S. data.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McMillan, John & McCann, Ewen, 1981. "Welfare Effects in Customs Unions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(363), pages 697-703, September.
- Frankel, Jeffrey & Stein, Ernesto & Wei, Shang-jin, 1995. "Trading blocs and the Americas: The natural, the unnatural, and the super-natural," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-95, June.
- Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 1996.
"On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation,"
9608001, EconWPA, revised 13 Jun 1997.
- Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 281-316, April.
- Evenett, S. J. & Keller, W., 1994. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Working papers 9713, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 1998. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," NBER Working Papers 6529, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Geraci, Vincent J & Prewo, Wilfried, 1982. "An Empirical Demand and Supply Model of Multilateral Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(3), pages 432-441, August.
- Goldstein, Morris & Khan, Mohsin S, 1978. "The Supply and Demand for Exports: A Simultaneous Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(2), pages 275-286, May.
- Hickman, Bert G. & Lau, Lawrence J., 1973. "Elasticities of substitution and export demands in a world trade model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 347-380, December.
- William A. Barnett, 1979. "Theoretical Foundations for the Rotterdam Model," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 109-130.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:1:p:202-231. 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: (Journals Division)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.