IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331321.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Much Do Institutions Matter for Trade? Evidence from Transition Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Mavisakalyan, Astghik

Abstract

What is the effect of institutions on trade? A line of recent literature has observed an apparent positive correlation between measures of institutional quality and volume of trade. But this could be due to endogeneity of institutions, rather than causality. This study endogenizes institutions in estimating gravity equation for bilateral trade exploiting the differences in years under the governing system of communism as an instrumental variable for institutions. The longer a country had been under communism, the stronger might have been its institutions supporting the centrally-planned features of economy and thus, the weaker would have been their adaptability to market conditions. The reduced form equation estimates provide evidence for highly economically and statistically significant effect of the years under communism on the quality of current institutions. We find that institutions indeed have a beneficial effect on bilateral trade. However, the extent of their influence might have been misestimated while not having taken care of endogeneity. Overall, the results obtained via this approach shed a new light over the extent of explanatory power of exporter's and importer's institutions over trade that might be helpful in explaining the "missing" trade costs phenomenon having been increasingly gaining attention in recent literature on international trade. Moreover, the results suggest that the number of years under communism indirectly affected trade, pointing out at the largely objective reasons behind the differences in the amount of trade and economic success of countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union on the one hand, and on the other hand, at the lasting comparative disadvantage of transition countries in general, in inheriting the institutions from the communist regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Mavisakalyan, Astghik, 2005. "How Much Do Institutions Matter for Trade? Evidence from Transition Countries," Conference papers 331321, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331321/files/1811.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    2. Johannes Bollen & Machiel Mulder & T. Manders, 2004. "Four futures for energy markets and climate change," CPB Special Publication 52.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    3. Francois, Joseph & van Tongeren, Frank & van Meijl, Hans, 2003. "Trade Liberalization and Developing Countries Under the Doha Round," CEPR Discussion Papers 4032, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Johannes Bollen & T. Manders & Machiel Mulder, 2004. "Four futures for energy markets and climate change," CPB Special Publication 52, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Hans van Meijl & Frank van Tongeren, 2002. "The Agenda 2000 CAP reform, world prices and GATT--WTO export constraints," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(4), pages 445-470, December.
    6. Nordström, Håkan & Vaughan, Scott, 1999. "Trade and the environment," WTO Special Studies, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division, volume 4, number 4.
    7. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    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. Parsons, Christopher R. & Skeldon, Ronald & Walmsley, Terrie L. & Winters, L. Alan, 2005. "Quantifying the International Bilateral Movements of Migrants," Conference papers 331402, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Achterbosch, Thom J. & Ben Hammouda, H. & Osakwe, Patrick N. & van Tongeren, Frank W., 2004. "Trade Liberalisation Under The Doha Development Agenda; Options And Consequences For Africa," Report Series 29104, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    3. Piermartini, Roberta & Teh, Robert, 2005. "Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy," WTO Discussion Papers 10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    4. Conforti, Piero & Velazquez, Beatriz E., 2004. "The Effects of Alternative Proposals for Agricultural Export Subsidies in the Current WTO Round," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 5(1), pages 1-26.
    5. Christian Dreger & Manuel Artís & Rosina Moreno & Raúl Ramos & Jordi Suriñach, 2007. "Study on the feasibility of a tool to measure the macroeconomic impact of structural reforms," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 272, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    6. F. J. H. Don & J. P. Verbruggen, 2006. "Models and methods for economic policy: 60 years of evolution at CPB," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 60(2), pages 145-170, May.
    7. Hübler, Michael, 2011. "Technology diffusion under contraction and convergence: A CGE analysis of China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 131-142, January.
    8. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    9. Parrado, Ramiro & De Cian, Enrica, 2014. "Technology spillovers embodied in international trade: Intertemporal, regional and sectoral effects in a global CGE framework," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 76-89.
    10. Hirokazu Akahori & Daisuke Sawauchi & Yasutaka Yamamoto, 2017. "Measuring the Changes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caused by the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Lips, Markus, 2004. "The Cap Mid Term Review And The Wto Doha Round; Analyses For The Netherlands, Eu And Accession Countries," Report Series 29092, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    12. Peter Verburg & Bas Eickhout & Hans Meijl, 2008. "A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(1), pages 57-77, March.
    13. Wilson,John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2002. "Dirty exports and environmental regulation : do standards matter to trade?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2806, The World Bank.
    14. Chitiga, Margaret & Kandiero, Tonia & Mabugu, Ramos, 2005. "A Computable General Equilibrium Micro-Simulation Analysis of the Impact of Trade Policies on Poverty in Zimbabwe," Conference papers 331388, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Antimiani, Alessandro & Conforti, Piero & Salvatici, Luca, 2005. "Alternative Market Access Scenarios in the Agriculture Trade Negotiations of the Doha Round," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23.
    16. Antimiani, Alessandro & Conforti, Piero & Salvatici, Luca, 2006. "Assessing Market Access: Do Developing Countries Really Get a Preferential Treatment?," Working Papers 18870, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    17. van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2002. "International Diffusion of Gains from Biotechnology and the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy," Conference papers 331038, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Machiel Mulder & Gijsbert Zwart, 2006. "Government involvement in liberalised gas markets; a welfare-economic analysis of Dutch gas-depletion policy," CPB Document 110.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    19. Arjan Lejour & Paul Veenendaal & Gerard Verweij & Nico van Leeuwen, 2006. "Worldscan; a model for international economic policy analysis," CPB Document 111.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Machiel Mulder & Gijsbert Zwart, 2006. "Government involvement in liberalised gas markets; a welfare-economic analysis of Dutch gas-depletion policy," CPB Document 110, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    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:331321. 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.