EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements - Empirical Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa
Since early 2008 interim trade agreements between the EU and six regions of ACP countries (respectively sub-groups within the region) are in force. These agreements could be stepping stones towards full Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and all ACP countries. We estimate the welfare effects of the interim agreements for nine African countries: Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, and Uganda. Our analysis is based on highly disaggregated data for trade and tariffs (HS six digit level) and follows a simple analytical model by Milner et al. (2006) to quantify the welfare effects of trade liberalization. We extend the literature in two principal ways: First, we estimate elasticities of import demand for the nine African countries importing from the EU and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively. Second, we apply the actual tariff reduction rates recently negotiated between the EU and the African countries to estimate the agreement's welfare effects of trade liberalization for the African countries. Results indicate that Botswana, Cameroon, Mozambique, and Namibia will significantly profit from the interim agreements, while the trade effects for Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda are close to zero. However, Tanzania and Uganda also have the potential to experience positive welfare effects, but predicted results of the liberalization based on the interim agreement's reduction rates fall short of the potential of a full liberalization.
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.ael.ethz.ch/|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matthias Busse & Harald Grossmann, 2007. "The trade and fiscal impact of EU/ACP economic partnership agreements on West African countries," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 787-811.
- Thomas Hertel & David Hummels & Maros Ivanic & Roman Keeney, 2004.
"How Confident Can We Be in CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements?,"
NBER Working Papers
10477, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Hertel, Thomas & Hummels, David & Ivanic, Maros & Keeney, Roman, 2007. "How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 611-635, July.
- Hertel, Thomas & David Hummels & Maros Ivanic & Roman Keeney, 2003. "How Confident Can We Be in CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," GTAP Working Papers 1324, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
- Kee, Hiau Looi & Nicita, Alessandro & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2004.
"Import Demand Elasticities and Trade Distortions,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4669, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Wesley W. Wilson, 1999. "Explaining Armington: What Determines Substitutability Between Home and Foreign Goods?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-21, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:gdec09:39. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.