IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/got/iaidps/197.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade as Aid: The Role of the EBA-Trade Preferences Regime in the Development Strategy

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This study focuses primarily on trade preferences offered by the European Union (EU) and in particular on the Everything But Arms (EBA) trade preferences regime, which is targeted exclusively on least developed countries (LDCs). Using the gravity model, an estimation of the influence of the EBA preferences on exports from the ACP LDCs to the EU-15 is presented. The model is applied to the time period 1995 to 2005 for the ACP countries’ exports to the EU-15 and estimated with the help of different econometric techniques. The core questions of the investigation are two: First, to examine the influence of the EBA preferences on the ACP LDCs’ export performance and second to compare the impact of the EBA scheme with the one of official development assistance. In addition to their separate effects the combined impact of EBA and aid flows is also analysed. The main results show a very poor performance of the EBA regime. However, the combined effect of the EBA and aid on exports is positive, indicating that the development strategy of the developed countries, in this case of the EU, needs to include both sorts of assistance, aid and trade preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2009. "Trade as Aid: The Role of the EBA-Trade Preferences Regime in the Development Strategy," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 197, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:got:iaidps:197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.vwl.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/ibero/working_paper_neu/DB197.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sisira Jayasuriya, 2006. "Trade or Aid: Key Issues in the Debate," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(1), pages 60-62, March.
    2. Keck, Alexander & Low, Patrick, 2004. "Special and differential treatment in the WTO: Why, when and how?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2004-03, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    3. Gert-Jan M. Linders & Henri L.F. de Groot, 2006. "Estimation of the Gravity Equation in the Presence of Zero Flows," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-072/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Fabien Candau & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "What Are EU Trade Preferences Worth for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Countries?," Working Papers 2005-19, CEPII research center.
    5. Ingo Borchert, 2009. "Trade diversion under selective preferential market access," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 1390-1410, November.
    6. Henrik Hansen & Finn Tarp, 2000. "Aid effectiveness disputed," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 375-398, April.
    7. Trueblood, Michael A. & Somwaru, Agapi, 2002. "Modeling The Eu'S Everything But Arms Initiative For The Least Developed Countries," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19642, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Baltagi, Badi H. & Bresson, Georges & Pirotte, Alain, 2003. "Fixed effects, random effects or Hausman-Taylor?: A pretest estimator," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 361-369, June.
    10. Akiko Suwa-Eisenmann & Thierry Verdier, 2007. "Aid and trade," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 481-507, Autumn.
    11. Elisa Gamberoni, 2007. "Do unilateral trade preferences help export diversification? An investigation of the impact of European unilateral trade preferences on the extensive and intensive margin of trade," IHEID Working Papers 17-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    12. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    13. Brenton, Paul, 2003. "Integrating the least developed countries into the world trading system : the current impact of EU preferences under everything but arms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3018, The World Bank.
    14. Egger, Peter, 2000. "A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 25-31, January.
    15. Persson, Maria & Wilhelmsson, Fredrik, 2006. "Assessing the Effects of EU Trade Preferences for Developing Countries," Working Papers 2006:4, Lund University, Department of Economics, revised 26 Jun 2006.
    16. Oliver Morrissey, 2006. "Aid or Trade, or Aid and Trade?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(1), pages 78-88, March.
    17. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Luca Monge-Roffarello & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "The EU's Everything But Arms Initiative and the Least-developed Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Sheila Page & Adrian Hewitt, 2002. "The New European Trade Preferences: Does ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) Help the Poor?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 20(1), pages 91-102, March.
    19. Fredrik Erixon & Razeen Sally, 2006. "Trade and Aid: Countering New Millennium Collectivism," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(1), pages 69-77, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    2. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann D. & Florian Johannsen, 2012. "Foreign Aid, Exports And Development In Euromed," Middle East Development Journal (MEDJ), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(02), pages 1-24.
    3. Maria Cipollina & Federica Demaria, 2020. "The Trade Effect of the EU’s Preference Margins and Non-Tariff Barriers," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Sami Bensassi & Laura Márquez-Ramos & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2012. "Economic Integration and the Two Margins of Trade: The Impact of the Barcelona Process on North African Countries' Exports," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 21(2), pages 228-265, March.
    5. Cipollina, Maria & Laborde, David & Salvatici, Luca, 2013. "Do Preferential Trade Policies (Actually) Increase Exports? An analysis of EU trade policies," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150177, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2016. "Are Trade Preferences more Effective than Aid in Supporting Exports? Evidence from the ‘Everything But Arms’ Preference Scheme," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1146-1171, August.
    2. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    3. DeMaria, Federica & Drogue, Sophie & Matthews, Alan, 2008. "Agro-Food Preferences in the EU's GSP Scheme: An Analysis of Changes between 2004 and 2006," Working Papers 6151, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    4. Aiello, Francesco & Demaria, Federica, 2009. "Do trade preferential agreements enhance the exports of developing countries? Evidence from the EU GSP," MPRA Paper 20093, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Stephan Klasen & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann & Matthias Bruckner, 2021. "Does the designation of least developed country status promote exports?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 157-177, February.
    6. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    7. Koopmann, Georg & Hoekstra, Ruth, 2010. "Aid for trade and the political economy of trade liberalization," HWWI Research Papers 2-22, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    8. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2010. "The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 87-106.
    9. Sèna Kimm Gnangnon, 2023. "Do unilateral trade preferences help reduce poverty in beneficiary countries?," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 249-288, February.
    10. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2005. "Multilateral solutions to the erosion of non-reciprocal preferences in NAMA," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2005-05, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    11. Persson, Maria, 2012. "From trade preferences to trade facilitation: Taking stock of the issues," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-33.
    12. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann & M. D. Parra & Stephan Klasen, 2014. "Does Aid Promote Donor Exports? Commercial Interest versus Instrumental Philanthropy," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(4), pages 559-587, November.
    13. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the utilization of non-reciprocal trade preferences offered by the QUAD countries on beneficiary countries' economic complexity," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    14. Persson, Maria, 2013. "Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective," Working Papers 2013:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Samuel Admassu, 2020. "The trade creation effects of Africa’s reciprocal vis-à-vis non-reciprocal trade agreements," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 2717-2730, December.
    16. Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor & Kaleb Girma Abreha, 2015. "Preferential Market Access, Foreign Aid and Economic Development," Economics Working Papers 2015-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    17. So Yeon LEE & Song Soo LIM, 2014. "Determinants of the Korean agricultural trade with the LDCs and the OECD countries," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(3), pages 110-122.
    18. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    19. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2021. "Do Unilateral Trade Preferences Help Reduce Poverty in Beneficiary Countries?," EconStor Preprints 247346, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Elisa Gamberoni, 2007. "Do unilateral trade preferences help export diversification? An investigation of the impact of European unilateral trade preferences on the extensive and intensive margin of trade," IHEID Working Papers 17-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    development aid; trade preferences; Everything But Arms; panel data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O24 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Trade Policy; Factor Movement; Foreign Exchange Policy
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F35 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Aid

    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:got:iaidps:197. 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: Sabine Jaep (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibgoede.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.