IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling of Small Countries in Economic Integration Processes: An Extension of the Armington Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Herok, C.A.
  • van Meijl, H.
  • van Tongeren, F.

Abstract

The focus of this paper is a process of ‘deep’ economic integration. Economic integration is not merely a removal of trade barriers but also increased competition because goods become more homogeneous due to, for example, harmonization of standards. To accommodate this ‘deep’ integration process we changed the preference structure for consumers in such a way that products from EU regions are considered as closer substitutes. The enlargement of the European Union in Eastern direction has therefore profound implications for Eastern European countries. Next to the reduction in trade barriers their commodities will become closer substitutes in the long run. The empirical analyses shows that the welfare gains for Eastern European countries of increased substitutability of their products with EU products are much larger than the welfare gains from removing the trade barriers. A second focus of this paper is the magnitude of the terms of trade effects in an Armington world that are often considered as being excessive. An Armington world implies national product differentiation and implicitly monopoly power for all countries. The latter is also true for small countries. Unilateral Trade liberalization experiments in such a world have often a negative welfare impact due to these excessive terms of trade effects. By increasing the degree of competition within the EU Union the new preference structure reduces this problem. The total impact of the new structure is ambiguous Trade liberalization experiments show that the values of the Armington elasticities in the new preference structure are crucial for production and welfare effects. In case of higher substitutability within the EU and lower between EU and non-EU products on EU markets, multilateral trade liberalization improves terms of trade for EU countries and deteriorates it for other countries. The opposite is true in case of increased competition ‘only’ within the EU market. In this paper we made some ‘simple’ assumptions about the values of the Armington parameters. A better estimation of these parameters is crucial if one performs policy analyses with this model.

Suggested Citation

  • Herok, C.A. & van Meijl, H. & van Tongeren, F., 2002. "Modelling of Small Countries in Economic Integration Processes: An Extension of the Armington Approach," Conference papers 331041, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331041/files/930.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2000. "Genetically Engineered Crops For Pest Management In U.S. Agriculture," Agricultural Economic Reports 33931, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Langrock, Ines & Hurley, Terrance M. & Ostlie, Kenneth, 2003. "Farmer Demand For Corn Rootworm Bt Corn: Do Insect Resistance Management Guidelines Matter?," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22033, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Cheng Fang & Bruce A. Babcock, 2003. "China's Cotton Policy and the Impact of China's WTO Accession and Bt Cotton Adoption on the Chinese and U.S. Cotton Sectors," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp322, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    3. Alexander E. Saak & David A. Hennessy, 2002. "Planting Decisions and Uncertain Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Crop Varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 308-319.
    4. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Gao, Qi & Larson, James A., 2006. "Simultaneous Adoption of Herbicide-Resistance and Conservation-Tillage Cotton Technologies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2005. "Towards a Generalizable Measure of the Value of a Change in Pesticide Use," 2005 Annual Meeting, February 5-9, 2005, Little Rock, Arkansas 35513, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Wronka, J. & Schmitz, P.M., 2006. "Ökonomische Auswirkungen von unterschiedlichen Produktions- und Handelsstrategien der EU beim Einsatz von gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 41, March.
    8. Caroline Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2003. "Commercial release of first‐generation genetically modified food products in New Zealand: using a partial equilibrium trade model to assess the impact on producer returns in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(2), pages 233-259, June.
    9. Nelson, Gerald C. & Bullock, David S., 2003. "Simulating a relative environmental effect of glyphosate-resistant soybeans," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 189-202, June.
    10. Olson, Kent D. & Elisabeth, Pascal, 2003. "An Economic Assessment Of The Whole-Farm Impact Of Precision Agriculture," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22119, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Sergio H. Lence & Sanjeev Agarwal, 2003. "Assessing the Feasibility of Processing and Marketing Niche Soy Oil," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-mrp6, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    12. Hurley, Terrance M. & Mitchell, Paul D. & Rice, Marlin E., 2001. "What Is The Value Of Bt Corn?," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20476, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Robert Dalpé, 2002. "Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 189-213, August.
    14. Fang, Cheng & Fan, Shenggen, 2002. "Estimating Crop-Specific Production Growth And Sources In China," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19669, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Staff Research Papers 31913, Productivity Commission.
    16. Paul, Catherine J. Morrison & Nehring, Richard, 2005. "Product diversification, production systems, and economic performance in U.S. agricultural production," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 525-548, June.
    17. Joshua D. Detre & Hiroki Uematsu & Ashok K. Mishra, 2011. "The influence of GM crop adoption on the profitability of farms operated by young and beginning farmers," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 41-61, May.
    18. Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, 2004. "Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues for Biosafety Governance in Asian Countries," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 2004-13, United Nations University - INTECH.
    19. Catherine Morrison Paul, 2003. "Productivity and Efficiency Measurement in Our “New Economy”: Determinants, Interactions, and Policy Relevance," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 161-177, April.
    20. Anderson, Kym & Damania, Richard & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Trade Standards and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food," CEPR Discussion Papers 4526, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:331041. 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.