IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_7498.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Tale of (Almost) 1001 Coefficients: Deep and Heterogeneous Effects of the EU-Turkey Customs Union

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Larch
  • Aiko F. Schmeißer
  • Joschka Wanner

Abstract

In view of the deferred start of negotiations for the modernization of the Customs Union between the EU and Turkey (CU-EUT), we look back and analyse the ex post trade consequences of the CU-EUT. Employing up-to-date econometric best practices for regional integration agreements, we quantify both total and heterogeneous trade effects of the CU-EUT. In contrast to most previous studies, our results indicate a significantly positive, large, and robust impact of the CU-EUT, implying an additional increase in EU-Turkey manufacturing trade by 55-65% compared to the previously active Ankara Agreement. We also provide evidence that the CU-EUT significantly increased Turkey’s trade with third countries. Additionally, a substantial heterogeneity in the CUEUT effect is found across different industries as well as for each of its member countries and the direction of trade. We link the heterogeneity of our up to 911 coefficient estimates to differences in initial trade costs and show that it cannot be ascribed to reductions in bilateral tariff rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Larch & Aiko F. Schmeißer & Joschka Wanner, 2019. "A Tale of (Almost) 1001 Coefficients: Deep and Heterogeneous Effects of the EU-Turkey Customs Union," CESifo Working Paper Series 7498, CESifo Group Munich.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp7498.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalya Ketenci, 2017. "The Effect of the European Union Customs Union on the Balance of Trade in Turkey," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 52(4), pages 219-232, November.
    2. Antonucci, Daniele & Manzocchi, Stefano, 2006. "Does Turkey have a special trade relation with the EU?: A gravity model approach," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 157-169, June.
    3. Jayjit Roy, 2010. "Do Customs Union Members Engage in More Bilateral Trade than Free‐Trade Agreement Members?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 663-681, September.
    4. Cosimo Beverelli & Alexander Keck & Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Institutions, Trade and Development: A Quantitative Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 6920, CESifo Group Munich.
    5. Cosimo Beverelli & Alexander Keck & Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Institutions, Trade and Development: A Quantitative Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 6920, CESifo Group Munich.
    6. Andreas Dür & Leonardo Baccini & Manfred Elsig, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-375, September.
    7. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H. & Larch, Mario & Yotov, Yoto V., 2015. "Economic integration agreements, border effects, and distance elasticities in the gravity equation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 307-327.
    8. James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2010. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2157-2186, December.
    9. Benedikt Heid & Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yoto, 2017. "Estimating the Effects of Non-discriminatory Trade Policies within Structural Gravity Models," CESifo Working Paper Series 6735, CESifo Group Munich.
    10. Baier, Scott L. & Yotov, Yoto V. & Zylkin, Thomas, 2019. "On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: Lessons from twenty years of trade integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 206-226.
    11. Tristan Kohl & Steven Brakman & Harry Garretsen, 2016. "Do Trade Agreements Stimulate International Trade Differently? Evidence from 296 Trade Agreements," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 97-131, January.
    12. Antonis Adam & Thomas Moutos, 2008. "The Trade Effects of the EU–Turkey Customs Union," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 685-700, May.
    13. Larch, Mario & Wanner, Joschka & Yotov, Yoto V., 2018. "Bi- and Unilateral trade effects of joining the Euro," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 230-234.
    14. Mario Larch & Joschka Wanner & Yoto V. Yotov & Thomas Zylkin, 2019. "Currency Unions and Trade: A PPML Re‐assessment with High‐dimensional Fixed Effects," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 81(3), pages 487-510, June.
    15. Dür, Andreas & Baccini, Leonardo & Elsig, Manfred, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new dataset," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Mattoo,Aaditya & Mulabdic,Alen & Ruta,Michele & Mattoo,Aaditya & Mulabdic,Alen & Ruta,Michele, 2017. "Trade creation and trade diversion in deep agreements," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8206, The World Bank.
    17. Tristan Kohl, 2014. "Do we really know that trade agreements increase trade?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(3), pages 443-469, August.
    18. Felicitas Nowak‐Lehmann & Dierk Herzer & Inmaculada Martinez‐Zarzoso & Sebastian Vollmer, 2007. "The Impact of a Customs Union between Turkey and the EU on Turkey's Exports to the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 719-743, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gravity model; European integration; country-specific effects;

    JEL classification:

    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_7498. 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: (Klaus Wohlrabe). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.