View
214
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Szervezeti egység
The Impact of the Eastern European Enlargement on the Prosperity of the Old Member States’ Agricultural Export
Sectors
A comparative assessment of the French, German and Italian agricultural export developments towards the new eastern
member states and of their effects on the respective revealed comparative advantage positions
Master thesis presentation
at AFEPA summer school 2013
Weinbrenner TimoSupervisor: Prof. Dr. Fertő Imre
Szervezeti egység
Presentation Outline
1. Motivation of the study and research question
2. Research objectives and indicators
3. Analytical method
4. Descriptive and analytical results
5. Summary and Conclusion
22013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
Szervezeti egység
(1) Motivation and research question
32013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
Literature shows that the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) benefitted from their EU-accessions in the form of welfare gains, while the EU-enlargement implied a moderate welfare decrease for the old member states (OMS).The thesis singles the OMS’ agricultural sectors out and assesses the impact of the EU-enlargement on them specifically.M
oti
vati
on
Res
earc
h
qu
esti
on
EU
-en
larg
emen
t co
nse
qu
ence
s
What overall economic effect did the three changes in the business environment have on the OMS’ agricultural sectors?
Consequences for the business environment of the agricultural producers in the OMS:
Szervezeti egység
(2) Research Objectives and Indicators
42013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
No. Objective Indicator
1 Changes in quantitative trade dynamics Disaggregated exports in value from OMS towards NMS
2 NMS’s significance as export markets Share of exports towards the NMS in the OMS’ total exports.
3 Change in trade pattern
•Exports in value by product category (degree of processing)•Lawrence Index (trade pattern analysis tool)•Krugman Index (trade pattern analysis tool)•Annual mean deviation of export data
(distribution divergence analysis)
4Impact on revealed comparative advantage (RCA) position
•Normalized Revealed Comparative Advantage Index. (NRCA Index)•Annual mean deviation of NRCA Index (distributional divergence analysis
5 Greatest beneficiary among the OMS Comparative analysis of the individual reporter’s results.
Data specification of basis for all indicators
Data and data source Exports in value; OECD iLibrary data base
Representatives for OMS(Reporters)
France, Germany and Italy
NMS in eastern Europe Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria
Assessment period 1999 to 2011
Analyzed trade items 543 agricultural products (all agricultural entries in SITC-5)
Product categories(differentiated by degree of processing and input-intensity)
1 – raw commodities2 – processed intermediate goods3 – consumer-ready food4 – horticultural products }Chen categories
= Data panel with 7059 observations (13 temporal observations for each of the 543 products)
Szervezeti egység
(2) Explanation of indicators; Lawrence and Krugman Indices
52013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
Interpretation
Lawrence Index Krugman Index
Range 0 – 1 0 – 1
Behavior Increasing with structural transformation Increasing with structural dissimilarity
Index Assessment Objective
Lawrence Structural transformation in the trade pattern of the reporter within a predefined period.
Krugman Trade pattern similarity of the reporter’s trade towards a predefined trading partner compared to the reporter’s world export pattern at one point in time.
Formulas: Lawrence Krugman
Where and r represent the reporter’s share of product j in it’s exports towards a predefined trading partner i and towards the world at time t respectively and β is assumed to equal 0.5
Szervezeti egység
Where Eij
denotes the export value of country i for commodity j
Ei denotes total export value (of all ‘j’) of country i
EREFj
denotes the export value of commodity j of the group of reference countries
EREF denotes the total export value (of all ‘j’) of the group of reference countries
(2) Explanation of indicators; NRCA Index
62013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
Interpretation:
NRCA value Interpretation
= 0 Country i exports product j at the comparative-neutral level
> 0 Country i exhibits a comparative (export) advantage in product j
< 0 Country i exhibits a comparative (export) disadvantage in product j
Range -2500 to 2500 (after multiplication of all index values by 10,000 for a more convenient presentation)
Szervezeti egység
(3) Analytical Method to analyze the indicators
72013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
1
2
3
Descriptive analysis
Time series regression model to test for structural breaks:Change in mean value after 2004
Change in trade growth rate after 2004
Panel Unit Root Test for Distributional Divergence:Panel Unit Root Tests are performed on the mean deviations of the export in value data from the OMS to the NMS.
A confirmed Unit Root would indicate distributional divergence over the assessment period
Wald test for joint probability: c(3) = 0; c(4) = 0
Szervezeti egység
(4) Results 1. Trade Quantities
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -
2
4
6
8
10
12 Evolvement from 1999 to 2011 (bn USD)
France Germany Italy
France Germany Italy
c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4) c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4) c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4)
Regression results
607,539 0.51 10,348 0.31 1,971,922 0.69 58,550 0.29 872,661 0.51 10,787 0.37
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Wald test Significant Significant Significantc(3)/c(1) 1.7% 3.0% 1.2%
Total agricultural exports from the OMS towards the CEEC country aggregate:
2013.08.08. 8
Weinbrenner Timo
Regression results:
Szervezeti egység
(4) Results 2. NMS as export markets
2013.08.08. 9
Weinbrenner Timo
Proportion of the reporters’ world exports directed towards the CEEC region (export shares):
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Evolvement from 1999 to 2011
France Germany Italy
France Germany Italy
c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4) c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4) c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4)
Regression results
1.3E-05 0.54 9.9E-08 0.17 4.0E-05 0.73 8.8E-07 0.10 3.7E-05 0.54 3.3E-07 0.18 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Wald test Significant Significant Significant
c(3)/c(1) 0.8% 2.2% 0.9%
Regression results:
Szervezeti egység
(4) Results 3. Trade Pattern
2013.08.08. 10
Weinbrenner Timo
Trade pattern = the composition of the export flow of a reporting country
Distributional DivergenceKrugman average annual changeLawrence
1999-2008
1999-2003
2004-2008
France 0.37 0.31 0.25Germany 0.42 0.23 0.27Italy 0.29 0.22 0.22
Above-average transformation rate;No EU-enlargement effect detectable
2000-2004
2005-2009
France -0.005 -0.010Germany -0.018 -0.008Italy -0.006 -0.011
Continuous adaptation;Difference apparent, but inconsistent
Annual Mean Deviations:Unit Root is accepted for
France, Germany and Italy at 1% level
Divergence in export flows confirmed
Chen 1
Chen 2
Chen 3
Chen 4
Chen 1
Chen 2
Chen 3
Chen 4
Chen 1
Chen 2
Chen 3
Chen 4
France Germany Italy
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
199920042011
Initial ranking of Chen categories systematically reinforced (in absolute and relative terms):1. Consumer-ready food2. Processed intermediate goods3. Raw commodities4. Horticultural products
But: for Italy Horticultural products is the second most important category.
Agri-exports towards the NMS, in million USD
Chen categories as division key:
Szervezeti egység
(4) Results 4. RCA position
2013.08.08. 11
Weinbrenner Timo
Reference country group is the OECD family
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040
France Germany Italy
NRCA evolvements from 1999 to 2011
Germany
c(1) c(2) c(3) c(4)NRCA Index
for entire Agri-sector
-0.024892 0.703081 0.000443 -0.03463 (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0001) (0.0000)
Wald test (improving) significant
c(3)/c(1) -1.8%
Regression results, exemplarily for Germany:For France, Germany and Italy the c(3) and c(4) coefficients are significant and improving in nature (except FRA c(4)).
But: the NRCA Index developments are not congruent with the export flow developments.
Conclusion: EU-enlargement had a supportive effect on the NRCA Index
Szervezeti egység
(4) Results 5. Greatest Beneficiary
2013.08.08. 12
Weinbrenner Timo
1
2
3
Ab
solu
te
trad
e in
crea
se
Eff
ect
on
N
RC
A
po
siti
on
Rel
ativ
e tr
ade
incr
ease
Decisive is the general involvements of the OMS in the sales markets of the NMS
Rank Country c(3)1 Germany 58,5502 Italy 10,7873 France 10,348
Rank Country c(3)/c(1)1 Germany 3.0%2 France 1.7%3 Italy 1.2%
heterogeneous
Relatively equal
In concordance with the level of involvement in the CEECs’ sales markets:Rank Country Export share towards NMS 2011
1 Germany 13%2 Italy 7%3 France 3%
Szervezeti egység
(5) Summary and Conclusion (i)
2013.08.08. 13
Weinbrenner Timo
Positive effect proven for:
1. Trade quantities towards NMS
2. Export shares towards NMS
3. Support of RCA position
EU-Enlargement effect on French, German and Italian agricultural sectors
Trade creation
Business Boost for OMS
Szervezeti egység
•The agricultural sectors of the OMS are internationally competitive.•OMS supply the NMS at different intensity levels (shares of total export). Germany has highest involvement, followed by Italy. France marginally active in NMS.
•Export patterns continuously transformed and converged to world export pattern.•Transformation occurred with structural determination, in favor of highly processed products (while Italy as well is strong in horticulture).
•Convergence indicates a process of maturing trade linkages.•Germany exhibits least Krugman-differences•NMS are heterogeneous sales markets for the OMS. Main trading partners:
•Absolute quantities: Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, new comer Romania.•Quantity per capita: Baltic states, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.
•Within the agribusiness, the food processing industry might be a major winner, since the greatest share of trade increases was achieved with consumer-ready food products.
• NRCA Index improvements rely heavily on a small number of competitive products
(5) Summary and Conclusion (ii)
2013.08.08. 14
Weinbrenner Timo
Other Revealments
Szervezeti egység
2013.08.08.Weinbrenner Timo
15
Thank You for Your Attention!!
Recommended