IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331457.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade and Integration Policy Analysis for Mercosur: AMIDA Model with Imperfect Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Flôres, Renato G.
  • Watanuki, Masakazu

Abstract

Regional integration initiatives re-emerge in Mercosur, as the bloc faces multiple challenges in external fronts. At the regional level, the group signed an Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Andean Community, while widening its membership. At the multilateral front, the ongoing WTO Round will deliver a package of resolutions and set main targets for future liberalization in key trade areas. This will inevitably trigger a new push for regional approaches. For the Southern Cone, the bloc will seek the pending regional agreements with the EU25 and the whole Western Hemisphere. The United States, while maintaining its position in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), has recently signed several bilateral agreements with Central and South American groups of countries. This will change the direction of current trade flows. Rising China and other Asian countries adds additional complexity in the global trade flows. All of these dynamic developments call for a re-evaluation of trade and integration options for Mercosur, together with devising new scenarios. In this paper, we apply a brand new static CGE model, called AMIDA (Analysing Mercosur’s Integration Decisions and Agreements) to help in shedding light on this diversity of options and opportunities. The model introduced several features both in modeling and database. First, it incorporates economies of scale and imperfect competition, applying a unique polynomial cost function. Second, for firm behavior, the model applies the Cournot-Nash oligopolistic competition. This allows analyzing strategic interaction among firms at home and with foreign competitors. Third, the model is built on the comprehensive hemispheric tariff database based on the FTAA database (IDB), incorporating a large number of ALADI (Latin American Integration Association) agreements. Fourth, scale economies are modeled on the basis of recent relevant studies. Finally, market concentration on the imperfect competition sectors is directly estimated from manufacturing data for key regions. We find that the north-south agreements with the United States and the EU25 have somewhat divergent consequences. As is already known, the greater integration of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is preferable to the bilateral FTA with the United States. The simulation results indicates that China is already an important and serious partner. The impact closely follows the pattern of the North-South agreement. We also measured the sectoral competitiveness for non-service sectors. It points to a key deficiency of the bloc, which possesses competitiveness in a few classical manufacturing industries and selected segments of the agribusiness with low value-added activities. All non-competitive sectors comprise key manufacturing industries. This suggests that though Mercosur’s trade policy is correct in pushing for greater market access, particularly in agriculture in international trade forums, and in having been quite aggressive in exploiting regional and comparative advantages, as well as in opening new markets and improving distribution channels, the bloc continues to experience a serious deficit in trade with higher-technology-content goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Flôres, Renato G. & Watanuki, Masakazu, 2006. "Trade and Integration Policy Analysis for Mercosur: AMIDA Model with Imperfect Competition," Conference papers 331457, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331457/files/2167.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2002. "Growth Is Good for the Poor," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 195-225, September.
    2. Edwards, Sebastian, 1997. "Trade Policy, Growth, and Income Distribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 205-210, May.
    3. Milanovic, Branko, 2002. "Can we discern the effect of globalization on income distribution? evidence from household budget surveys," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2876, The World Bank.
    4. Barro, Robert J, 2000. "Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 5-32, March.
    5. Datt, Gaurav & Ravallion, Martin, 1992. "Growth and redistribution components of changes in poverty measures : A decomposition with applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 275-295, April.
    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. Hamid, Zarinah & Amin, Ruzita Mohd, 2013. "Trade and Human Development in OIC Countries: A Panel Data Analysis," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 21, pages 55-70.
    2. Kraay, Aart, 2004. "When is growth pro-poor? Cross-country evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3225, The World Bank.
    3. Mónica Patricia Ospina, 2014. "El efecto del gasto social en la distribución del ingreso: un análisis para economías latinoamericanas," Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, December.
    4. Aart Kraay, 2004. "When is Growth Pro-Poor? Cross-Country Evidence," IMF Working Papers 2004/047, International Monetary Fund.
    5. Adams, Samuel, 2008. "Globalization and income inequality: Implications for intellectual property rights," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 725-735.
    6. Jabłoński Łukasz, 2019. "Inequality in Economics: The Concept, Perception, Types, and Driving Forces," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(1), pages 17-43, March.
    7. Monica Ospina, 2009. "The effect of social spending on income inequality:An analysis for Latin American countries," Documentos de Trabajo de Valor Público 10620, Universidad EAFIT.
    8. Isabelle Bensidoun & Sébastien Jean & Aude Sztulman, 2011. "International trade and income distribution: reconsidering the evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 147(4), pages 593-619, November.
    9. Bucevska Vesna, 2019. "Determinants of Income Inequality in EU Candidate Countries: A Panel Analysis," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 57(4), pages 397-413, December.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4212 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. N'Yilimon Nantob, 2015. "Income Inequality and Inflation in Developing Countries: An Empirical Investigation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2888-2902.
    12. Ravallion, Martin, 2001. "Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1803-1815, November.
    13. Kraay, Aart, 2006. "When is growth pro-poor? Evidence from a panel of countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 198-227, June.
    14. Wu, Jyun-Yi & Hsu, Chih-Chiang, 2012. "Foreign direct investment and income inequality: Does the relationship vary with absorptive capacity?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 2183-2189.
    15. Martin Ravallion, 2004. "The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: why Measurement Matters," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 1, March.
    16. Stefan Jestl & Sandra M. Leitner & Sebastian Leitner, 2022. "The relative impact of different forces of globalization on wage inequality: A fresh look at the EU experience," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1003-1037, September.
    17. Gourdon, Julien, 2006. "Openness and Inequality in Developing Countries: A New Look at the Evidence," MPRA Paper 4176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee & Mehrnoosh Hasanzade, 2020. "Asymmetric Link between U.S. Tariff Policy and Income Distribution: Evidence from State Level Data," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 821-857, September.
    19. Ravallion, Martin, 2006. "Looking beyond averages in the trade and poverty debate," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1374-1392, August.
    20. Eddy LEE & Marco VIVARELLI, 2006. "The social impact of globalization in the developing countries," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 145(3), pages 167-184, September.
    21. Antonelli, Cristiano & Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2017. "Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 85-98.

    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:331457. 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.