IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332498.html

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:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. Zoryana Olekseyuk, 2015. "The EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and the importance of FDI," EcoMod2015 8391, EcoMod.
    4. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.