IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpb/discus/14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One size fits all? Accession to the internal market; an industry level assessment of EU enlargement

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Nahuis

Abstract

Enlargement of the EU with ten Central and Eastern European Countries is a major item on the EU's policy agenda. Assessing the economic consequences of the accession to the internal market is not obvious. This paper provides a new method to quantify the impact of the accession. The assessment is based on a gravity-equation, estimated for 16 industries. The estimations exploit the fact that the current EU members already operate in a Single Market since 1992. The estimations provide information on the barriers, at the level of industries, that the Single Market program succeeded to remove. This is used to assess the industry-level impact of enlargement, for the current EU members and for the accession countries. This approach yields different estimates for the impact of accession to the internal market for the different industries and different countries. The impact of accession to the internal market is notably large in Agriculture, Textiles, Trade Services, Transport Equipment, Non-metallic Minerals and Food Processing. Moreover, the aggregate excess trade within the internal market is comparable to what other studies find. The shock of accession to the internal market is plausibly largest for the accession countries. For the current members of the EU the upcoming enlargement likely has the largest impact for Austria, Greece and Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Nahuis, 2002. "One size fits all? Accession to the internal market; an industry level assessment of EU enlargement," CPB Discussion Paper 14, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpb:discus:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/one-size-fits-all-accession-internal-market-industry-level-assessment-eu-enlargement.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1998. "The Regionalization of the World Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number fran98-1.
    2. Tamim Bayoumi & Barry Eichengreen, 1997. "Is Regionalism Simply a Diversion? Evidence from the Evolution of the EC and EFTA," NBER Chapters, in: Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements, pages 141-168, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Christian Keuschnigg & Mirela Keuschnigg & Wilhelm Kohler, 2001. "The German Perspective on Eastern EU Enlargement," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 513-542, April.
    4. Soloaga, Isidro & Alan Wintersb, L., 2001. "Regionalism in the nineties: what effect on trade?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Wei, Shang-Jin, 1993. "Emerging Currency Blocs," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers 233209, University of California-Berkeley, Department of Economics.
    6. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    7. Jan Fidrmuc & Jarko Fidrmuc, 2003. "Disintegration and Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(5), pages 811-829, November.
    8. Hummels, David, 1999. "Toward a Geography of Trade Costs," Working papers 283448, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Fidrmuc, Jarko & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2000. "Integration, disintegration and trade in Europe: Evolution of trade relations during the 1990s," ZEI Working Papers B 03-2000, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    10. John F. Helliwell, 1996. "Do National Borders Matter for Quebec's Trade?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 507-522, August.
    11. Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2002. "Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade," Working Papers 2002-01, CEPII research center.
    12. Hummels, David, 1999. "Toward a Geography of Trade Costs," GTAP Working Papers 1162, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    13. Keith Head & John Ries, 2001. "Increasing Returns versus National Product Differentiation as an Explanation for the Pattern of U.S.-Canada Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 858-876, September.
    14. Takatoshi Ito & Anne O. Krueger, 1997. "Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number ito_97-1.
    15. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-623, June.
    16. Alan V. Deardorff, 2011. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 24, pages 267-293, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 1998. "The Role of History in Bilateral Trade Flows," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 33-62, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-153, February.
    19. Frankel, Jeffrey A. (ed.), 1997. "The Regionalization of the World Economy," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226259956.
    20. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2000. "Estimating the Effect of Currency Unions on Trade and Output," NBER Working Papers 7857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. John C. Beghin & David Roland-Holst & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2002. "Global Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round: What are the Implications for North and South?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-wp308, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    22. Richard E. Baldwin & Joseph F. Francois & Richard Portes, 1997. "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 12(24), pages 125-176.
    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. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    2. Chen, Natalie, 2004. "Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-118, May.
    3. Whalley, John & Xin, Xian, 2009. "Home and regional biases and border effects in Armington type models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 309-319, March.
    4. I-Hui Cheng & Howard J. Wall, 2005. "Controlling for heterogeneity in gravity models of trade and integration," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 87(Jan), pages 49-63.
    5. Magerman, Glenn & Studnicka, Zuzanna & Van Hove, Jan, 2016. "Distance and border effects in international trade: A comparison of estimation methods," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-31.
    6. Arjan M. Lejour & Ruud A. De Mooij & Richard Nahuis, 2001. "EU Enlargement: Economic Implications for Countries and Industries," CESifo Working Paper Series 585, CESifo.
    7. Melitz, Jacques, 2007. "North, South and distance in the gravity model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 971-991, May.
    8. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2007. "Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 72-95, March.
    9. Luca De Benedictis & Roberta De Santis & Claudio Vicarelli, 2005. "Hub-and-Spoke or else? Free trade agreements in the 'enlarged' European Union," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 2(2), pages 245-260, December.
    10. Daniel L. Millimet & Thomas Osang, 2007. "Do state borders matter for U.S. intranational trade? The role of history and internal migration," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 93-126, February.
    11. Jasmin Katrin Gröschl, 2013. "Gravity Model Applications and Macroeconomic Perspectives," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 48.
    12. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Felicitas, Nowak-Lehmann D. & Horsewood, Nicholas, 2009. "Are regional trading agreements beneficial?: Static and dynamic panel gravity models," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 46-65, March.
    13. Michele FRATIANNI & Chang HOON HO, 2007. "On the Relationship Between RTA Expansion and Openness," Working Papers 288, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    14. Juliette Milgram, 2003. "Quantitative Restrictions on Clothing Imports: Impact and Determinants of the Common Trade Policy Towards Developing Countries," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    15. Brülhart, Marius & Trionfetti, Federico, 2009. "A test of trade theories when expenditure is home biased," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 830-845, October.
    16. Mr. Rikhil Bhavnani & Ms. Natalia T. Tamirisa & Mr. Arvind Subramanian & Mr. David T. Coe, 2002. "The Missing Globalization Puzzle," IMF Working Papers 2002/171, International Monetary Fund.
    17. James Harrigan, 2001. "Specialization and the Volume of Trade: Do the Data Obey the Laws?," NBER Working Papers 8675, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "A Survey of the Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements using Gravity Models," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 60(4), pages 421-473.
    19. Henry Overman & Stephen Redding & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Economic Geography of Trade, Production, and Income: A Survey of Empirics," CEP Discussion Papers dp0508, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Jean-Marc Siroën & Aycil Yucer, 2012. "The impact of MERCOSUR on trade of Brazilian states," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 148(3), pages 553-582, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F0 - International Economics - - General
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    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:cpb:discus:14. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cpbgvnl.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.