IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iamo11/19.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patterns and determinants of agro-food trade of the BRIC countries: The role of institution

Author

Listed:
  • Bojnec, Štefan
  • Fertő, Imre
  • Fogarasi, József

Abstract

Agro-food trade between the BRIC countries has increased. Brazil and China contributed to the rapid increase of agro-food trade. The Russian Federation experienced the stagnating and the most volatile agro-food trade over time. The composition of agro-food trade for the BRIC countries varies by the BEC agro-food trade categories and over time. The prevailing in the composition of agro-food trade are BEC122 and BEC111 for Brazil and the Russian Federation, and BEC122 and BEC112 for India and China. Brazil and India have strengthened their market shares in agro-food trade between the BRIC countries, while the Russian Federation has experienced the most severe deterioration. The number and the share of trading partners that have traded every year vary between the BRIC countries and the BEC agro-food trade categories over time. Agro-food trade between the BRIC countries is positively associated with the GDP size and population size in importing countries, but negatively associated with the GDP size and population size in exporting countries as well as with distance. Mixed results are found for border effect, institutional quality and institutional similarity depending on the BEC agro-food trade categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Bojnec, Štefan & Fertő, Imre & Fogarasi, József, 2011. "Patterns and determinants of agro-food trade of the BRIC countries: The role of institution," IAMO Forum 2011: Will the "BRICs Decade" Continue? – Prospects for Trade and Growth 19, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iamo11:19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50802/1/670813648.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Nunn, 2007. "Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and the Pattern of Trade," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(2), pages 569-600.
    2. Feenstra, Robert C, 1994. "New Product Varieties and the Measurement of International Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 157-177, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Andrei A. Levchenko, 2007. "Institutional Quality and International Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(3), pages 791-819.
    5. Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2006. "Notes on CEPII’s distances measures," MPRA Paper 26469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Christian Broda & David E. Weinstein, 2006. "Globalization and the Gains From Variety," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 541-585.
    7. Timothy J. Kehoe & Kim J. Ruhl, 2013. "How Important Is the New Goods Margin in International Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(2), pages 358-392.
    8. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Peter Egger, 2002. "An Econometric View on the Estimation of Gravity Models and the Calculation of Trade Potentials," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 297-312, February.
    11. Pierre‐Guillaume Méon & Khalid Sekkat, 2008. "Institutional Quality And Trade: Which Institutions? Which Trade?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 227-240, April.
    12. Daniel Berkowitz & Johannes Moenius & Katharina Pistor, 2006. "Trade, Law, and Product Complexity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 363-373, May.
    13. Laszlo Matyas, 1997. "Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 363-368, May.
    14. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1997. "Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 72, January.
    15. Tenreyro, Silvana, 2007. "On the trade impact of nominal exchange rate volatility," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 485-508, March.
    16. Peter K. Schott, 2008. "The relative sophistication of Chinese exports [‘Manufacturing Earnings and Compensation in China’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 6-49.
    17. Zahoor Haq & Karl Meilke, 2010. "Do the BRICs and Emerging Markets Differ in their Agrifood Imports?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Priya Ranjan & Jae Young Lee, 2007. "Contract Enforcement And International Trade," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 191-218, July.
    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. Ferto, Imre & Fogarasi, Jozsef, 2011. "On Trade Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility and Institutional Quality: The Case of Central European Countries," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114351, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Do, Quy-Toan & Levchenko, Andrei A. & Raddatz, Claudio, 2016. "Comparative advantage, international trade, and fertility," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 48-66.
    3. Heyman Fredrik & Tingvall Patrik Gustavsson, 2015. "The Dynamics of Offshoring and Institutions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1975-2016, October.
    4. Bengt Söderlund & Patrik Tingvall, 2014. "Dynamic effects of institutions on firm-level exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(2), pages 277-308, May.
    5. Chor, Davin, 2010. "Unpacking sources of comparative advantage: A quantitative approach," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 152-167, November.
    6. Álvarez, Inmaculada C. & Barbero, Javier & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Zofío, José L., 2018. "Does Institutional Quality Matter for Trade? Institutional Conditions in a Sectoral Trade Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 72-87.
    7. French, Scott, 2016. "The composition of trade flows and the aggregate effects of trade barriers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 114-137.
    8. Francois, Joseph & Manchin, Miriam, 2013. "Institutions, Infrastructure, and Trade," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 165-175.
    9. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H. & Feng, Michael, 2014. "Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 339-350.
    10. Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2016. "Terms of trade and global efficiency effects of free trade agreements, 1990–2002," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 279-298.
    11. Bailey, Michael & Gupta, Abhinav & Hillenbrand, Sebastian & Kuchler, Theresa & Richmond, Robert & Stroebel, Johannes, 2021. "International trade and social connectedness," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. Nicolas Sauter, 2012. "Talking trade: language barriers in intra-Canadian commerce," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 301-323, February.
    13. Balistreri, Edward J. & Hillberry, Russell H. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2011. "Structural estimation and solution of international trade models with heterogeneous firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 95-108, March.
    14. Hochman, Gal & Tabakis, Chrysostomos & Zilberman, David, 2013. "The impact of international trade on institutions and infrastructure," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 126-140.
    15. Elisaveta Archanskaia & Guillaume Daudin, 2012. "Heterogeneity and the Distance Puzzle," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2012-17, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    16. Peter McQuade, 2010. "The Evolution of International Trade on the Extensive and Intensive Margins," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp325, IIIS, revised Apr 2010.
    17. Nunn, Nathan & Trefler, Daniel, 2014. "Domestic Institutions as a Source of Comparative Advantage," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 263-315, Elsevier.
    18. Anna Golovko & Hasan Sahin, 2021. "Analysis of international trade integration of Eurasian countries: gravity model approach," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(3), pages 519-548, September.
    19. D’Artis Kancs, 2010. "Structural Estimation of Variety Gains from Trade Integration in Asia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(3), pages 270-288, September.
    20. Tingvall, Patrik, 2011. "Dynamic Effects of Corruption on Offshoring," Ratio Working Papers 182, The Ratio Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agro-food trade; BRIC countries; adapted gravity model; institutions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • O57 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Comparative Studies of Countries

    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:zbw:iamo11:19. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iamoode.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.