IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331195.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Access in International Trade: The North-South Divide and Regional Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Mayer, Thierry
  • Zignago, Soledad

Abstract

This paper develops a method of assessment of market access difficulties with an application to trade patterns between developing and developed countries. The method also offers a renewal of the assessment of the impact of regional trading arrangements. We use a micro-founded gravity-type model of trade patterns to estimate the impact of national borders on revealed access to Northern markets by Southern producers. Everything else equal, in the nineties, a rich country imports on average 276 times more from itself than from a developing country, only 31 times more when importing from another rich country. Results reveal that those difficulties faced by developing countries’ exporters in accessing developed countries’ consumers are furthermore higher than the reciprocal. Currently, the tariff equivalents of those border effects differ by around 30 percentage points. This asymmetry gets up to 50 points when considering trade between rich countries and lower middle income ones. Those considerable difficulties in Northern market access have however experienced a noticeable fall since the mid seventies. Another of our results concerns the impact of tariffs on market access. While tariffs still have in general an influence on trade patterns, our estimates suggest that they are an important component of market access difficulties faced by Southern exporters on Northern markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2004. "Market Access in International Trade: The North-South Divide and Regional Agreements," Conference papers 331195, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331195/files/1523.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Staff Research Papers 31913, Productivity Commission.
    2. Decaluwe, B. & Patry, A. & Savard, L. & Thorbecke, E., 1999. "Poverty Analysis Within a General Equilibrium Framework," Cahiers de recherche 9909, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    3. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    4. Anderson, Kym & Nielsen, Chantal, 2004. "Economic Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology Research in the Presence of Price-Distorting Policies," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 19, pages 374-394.
    5. Kym Anderson & Shunli Yao, 2003. "China, Gmos And World Trade In Agricultural And Textile Products," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 157-169, June.
    6. Chantal Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2001. "Global market effects of alternative European responses to genetically modified organisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 137(2), pages 320-346, June.
    7. Baldwin, Robert E, 1989. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 119-135, Fall.
    8. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2001. "Genetically modified foods, trade, and developing countries," TMD discussion papers 77, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "GM food technology abroad and its implications for Australia and New Zealand," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58365, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Gruere, Guillaume & Bouet, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, 2007. "Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines," IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    5. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Standards, Trade And Protection: The Case Of Gmos," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20282, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 20, pages 771-788.
    7. Frisvold, George & Reeves, Jeanne, 2015. "Genetically Modified Crops: International Trade And Trade Policy Effects," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jackson, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 263-281, September.
    9. Wörz, Julia, 2004. "Skill Intensity in Foreign Trade and Economic Growth," Conference papers 331252, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Bchir, Mohamed Hedi & Bouet, Antoine, 2009. "Which tariff aggregator for trade modelers?," Conference papers 331888, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Haider A. Khan, 2007. "Social Accounting Matrix: A Very Short Introduction for Economic Modeling," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-477, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    12. Arief Anshory Yusuf, 2008. "INDONESIA-E3: An Indonesian Applied General Equilibrium Model for Analyzing the Economy, Equity, and the Environment," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 200804, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised Sep 2008.
    13. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    14. Allam, Miriam S. & Goerres, Achim, 2008. "Adopting the euro in post-communist countries: An analysis of the attitudes toward the single currency," MPIfG Discussion Paper 08/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Dorothée Boccanfuso & Luc Savard, 2011. "The Food Crisis and its Impacts on Poverty in Senegal and Mali: Crossed Destinies," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 29(2), pages 211-247, March.
    16. Kjersti Nes & K. Aleks Schaefer, 2022. "Retaliatory use of public standards in trade," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 142-161, January.
    17. Svetlana Edmeades & Melinda Smale, 2006. "A trait‐based model of the potential demand for a genetically engineered food crop in a developing economy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 351-361, November.
    18. Luc Savard, 2004. "Poverty and Inequality Analysis within a CGE Framework: a Comparative Analysis of the Representative Agent and Micro-Simulation Approaches," Cahiers de recherche 0412, CIRPEE.
    19. Luc Savard & Stéphane Mussard, 2005. "Micro-simulation and Multi-decomposition: A Case Study: Philippines," Cahiers de recherche 05-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    20. Caesar B. Cororaton & Erwin L. Corong, 2006. "Agriculture-sector Policies and Poverty in the Philippines: a Computable General-Equilibrium (CGE) Analysis," Working Papers MPIA 2006-09, PEP-MPIA.

    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:331195. 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: 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.