View
20
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Analysis of ASEAN FTA in the Dynamic East Asian Perspective: AGravity Equation ApproachArisyi Fariza RazInstitute for Development Policy and Management (School of Environment andDevelopment), University of Manchester, Manchester, United KingdomEmail: [email protected]
Citation preview
i
Analysis of ASEAN FTA in the Dynamic East Asian Perspective: A
Gravity Equation Approach
Arisyi Fariza Raz
Institute for Development Policy and Management (School of Environment and
Development), University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]
ii
Analysis of ASEAN FTA in the Dynamic East Asian Perspective: A Gravity Equation
Approach
ASEAN economies are amongst the emerging economies in the developing
world. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the impact of AFTA on East Asian
trade flows. Meanwhile, the revival of the gravity equation in the recent years has
turned it into a better tool in analysing regional trade flows. Therefore, the main
purpose of this paper is to analyse the determinants of trade in ASEAN 6
economies and the significance of AFTA in the East Asian regional trade by
augmenting the traditional gravity equation with new variables. The contribution
of this paper is three-folds. First, the empirical methodology used in this paper
corrects a major shortcoming that exists in the literature by introducing fixed
effects and random effects models. Second, it finds the main determinants of
trade flows in ASEAN 6 economies. Third, it shows the long-run impact of
AFTA on East Asian economies is net welfare gain.
Keywords: International trade, gravity equation, fixed effects and random effects,
ASEAN Free Trade Area, trade creation, trade diversion.
1
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, the number of countries that have signed an FTA (Free Trade
Agreement) has dramatically increased. A report by the World Trade Organisation
(2000) identified that there were 148 free trade agreements in force and other 67
agreements were under negotiation. This indicates that regions around the world have
found it necessary to strengthen economic cooperation through formal trade agreements
in order to increase the competitiveness of local products in the world market through
the elimination of trade barriers. Even though, as suggested by Plummer (2009),
regional cooperation in East Asia has been characterised by “non-formal” and “market-
driven” integration, this increasing competition within international trade has made East
Asian countries realise the importance of establishing formal regional cooperation
agreements. As the consequence, ASEAN (The Association of South East Asian
Nations) was established in August 1967 and became the major regional organisation.
Initially aimed at strengthening regional political security cooperation, since
1970s, however, ASEAN member countries started to realise the importance of
strengthening regional economic cooperation through the coordination of industrial
policies and the promotion of intra-regional trade (Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004). In 1977,
its member countries established preferential trading arrangements (PTA’s) to promote
intra-regional trade. Nevertheless, empirical studies suggest that the PTA’s achieved
very limited success (see e.g. Ariff, 1994; Edwards and Skully, 1996; Garnaut and
Drysdale, 1994). In this regard, a study by Cuyvers and Pupphavesa (1996) points out
that the disappointing results of the PTA’s are due to the following factors: 1) the small
number of products included under the PTA’s relative to the total number of products
traded by ASEAN member countries and 2) the long exclusion lists maintained by
2
ASEAN member countries because they could easily exclude group products from the
PTA’s.
Figure 1. Intra-ASEAN Trade Flows (US$ Million)
Source: ASEAN Secretariat (2005)
However, rapid changes in global competition during the 1980’s and 1990’s
forced the ASEAN member countries to develop more serious regional economic
cooperation. In addition, the emergence of China’s economy intensified the competition
for attracting FDI from developed countries (Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004).
Consequentially, in January of 1992, six ASEAN member countries, Brunei
Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, signed a
declaration to achieve AFTA within 15 years.1 One year after the 1997 Asian Financial
Crisis, these countries agreed to move forward with trade liberalisation and thus AFTA
came into force among the ASEAN 6 countries at the beginning of 2002. The initial
goal of AFTA was to reduce tariffs on intra-ASEAN trade to between 0-5%. The
mechanism used to achieve this goal has been the reduction of the Common Effective
Preferential Tariff (CEPT), which includes agricultural products, manufactured goods
0!
30,000!
60,000!
90,000!
120,000!
150,000!
1993!1994!1995!1996!1997!1998!1999!2000!2001!2002!2003!2004!
Exports! Imports!
3
and services (Cuyvers and Pupphavesa, 1996). In this regard, some authors suggest that
the reason that AFTA is more encompassing than the previously established PTA’s is
because the former is easier to achieve because the approach of CEPT is reciprocal and
sectoral, whereas the latter adopted a product-by-product approach (Pangestu et al.,
1992; Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004).
Table 1. Shares of exports from the ASEAN 6 economies (value in US$ thousands)
Partner 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2003
Value 17,315,001 36,595,575 74,756,056 64,866,815 79,708,262 104,425,666
ASEAN 6
Share 14% 20% 24% 21% 22% 24%
Value 35,358,707 39,506,324 62,597,095 55,323,682 79,859,305 98,974,995 Korea,
China,
Japan Share 30% 22% 20% 18% 22% 22%
Value 66,968,247 104,395,395 173,992,587 194,896,019 203,770,589 238,890,177
ROW
Share 56% 58% 56% 62% 56% 54%
Value 119,641,955 180,497,294 311,345,738 315,086,516 363,338,156 442,290,838
World
Share 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Author’s calculation based on United Nations COMTRADE Statistics Database
After the establishment of FTA in 1992, there were changes in the direction of
the exports and imports of AFTA intra-regional trade as well as trade dependency with
outside trading partners. One obvious intra-regional effect of AFTA was the rapid
increase of intra-ASEAN trade flows. Figure 1 shows that the volume of intra-ASEAN
exports and imports were quadrupled in 2004 relative to the volume in 1993.
Nevertheless, statistics also show that there is a decreasing share of trade from the
ASEAN 6 member countries to the rest of the world. Table 1 presents the changing
4
shares of exports from the ASEAN 6 economies. It supports the statistics shown in
figure 1 by showing that there was an increasing trend of export shares of the intra-
ASEAN 6 economies from 1989 to 2003. On the other hand, during the same period,
the share of exports from the ASEAN 6 economies to China, Japan and South Korea
showed a downward trend, while the share of exports to the rest of the world tended to
be constant.
Despite these statistics, however, it is necessary to conduct a formal examination
in order to measure the welfare effect of AFTA. From the previous literature, one of the
most applicable methods for examining intra-regional and extra-regional economic
integration is to use the gravity equation. Since the revival of the gravity equation, many
authors augment the traditional gravity equation with some of the above variables,
depending on the data and purpose of the study. Further, the econometric methods have
also been improved from time to time, by estimating the equation with a more
sophisticated technique instead of ordinary least square, thus provides better
justification for the use of the model. The rest of the paper is as follows. The next
section provides the literature review regarding gravity equation, section 3 discusses the
methodology and estimates the augmented gravity equation. Section 4 and 5 provide the
estimated results and further analysis, respectively, while the last section concludes this
paper.
2. The Gravity Equation of International Trade
2.1. Review of the Previous Studies
The concept of the gravity equation in economics has been borrowed from
Newton’s law of gravitation. According to this law, the gravitational force that exists
between two celestial bodies depends positively on their mass and negatively on their
5
distance. In the 20th century, Tinbergen (1962) and Linneman (1966) adopted and
popularised this concept in the field of international economics to examine the patterns
of bilateral trade flows among developed countries. In contrast to its simple application
in physics, the application of the gravity equation in economics can be more
complicated. In this regard, Filippini and Molini (2003) suggest that there are two
important facts that are worth considering: 1) the concepts of distance and mass have to
be reinterpreted according to socio-economic phenomena, hence it is important to
consider the proxy carefully in estimating the equation; and 2) the relationship between
the dependent variable and the independent variables in the equation needs to be clearly
specified, usually in the form of natural logarithms in order to make the relationship
become linear. By taking into account these two facts, the gravitational force is
translated economically as the flows of goods from one country to another country.
Since its adoption, the gravity equation has become one of the most popular
methods used to investigate the flow of bilateral trade. One of the first and most
celebrated empirical works is a study by McCallum (1995), which investigates how the
Canada-US border affects regional trade patterns. After the work by McCallum (1995)
many economists used the gravity equation to find the determinants of trade of a
country. A study by Jugurnath et al. (2007) suggests that, in addition to the traditional
variables in the gravity model (i.e. GDP, distance, population, physical area and cultural
similarity), exchange rate movements and taxation rates also affect bilateral trade flows
in the Asia-Pacific region. Currency depreciation encourages exports and discourages
imports, whereas higher tax rates decrease bilateral trade. Most of other studies also
support the findings of Jugurnath et al. (2007) with respect to the relationship between
currency depreciation and trade flows (for instance, see Thursby and Thursby, 1987;
Carrère, 2006; Eita and Ashipala, 2008).
6
Melitz (2007) further investigates the role of geographical distance in the gravity
equation by deriving it into two variables: level of remoteness and internal distance. In
this regard, he suggests that internal distance has a significant negative influence on
trade flows, whereas remoteness of a country appears to be of only modest significance.
On the contrary, some other studies suggest that the remoteness of a country is
significantly and positively correlated with trade flows (Krueger, 1999; Carrère, 2006).
Moreover, Carrère (2006) also points out that countries with better levels of
infrastructure will trade more, while landlocked countries will trade less. Some studies
also analyse the role of adjacency in affecting trade flows. Most of these studies find
evidence that countries sharing the same border will have a greater propensity to trade
with one another (Endoh, 1999; Melitz, 2007). Further, Filippini and Molini (2003)
introduced technological distance into the equation to examine whether a technological
gap between two countries affects these countries’ trade flows. The results suggest that
countries tend to exchange more goods when they have less of a technological gap.
Other studies also investigate whether Linder’s (1961) hypothesis is really an
important determinant of trade flows. According to Linder (1961), two countries will
trade more with one another if they have more similar demand structures. The first
study to include the Linder hypothesis into the gravity model was that of Thursby and
Thursby (1987). The findings of this support the truth of the Linder hypothesis for
developed countries where manufactured goods account for a large proportion of
exports. This finding is also supported by that of Hallak (2006), who tested the
prevalence of the Linder hypothesis on bilateral trade amongst 60 countries in 1995.
Moreover, since the investigations of the Linder hypothesis usually use data from
developed countries, McPherson et al. (2001) argue that it is also necessary to test its
significance in developing countries. Their study examines the prevalence of the Linder
7
hypothesis in the traded manufactured goods in African countries and also concludes
that countries with similar per capita income levels tend to trade more intensively.
The gravity equation is also used to examine whether RTA causes trade creation
or trade diversion. Trade creation occurs when a trade alliance increases the trade flows
between member countries, which brings benefits to the member countries of the trade
alliance and thus increases their welfare. On the other hand, trade diversion is a shifting
of trade flows from being between a member country and a non-member country to
being between one member country and another member country of the trade alliance. It
decreases the welfare of the countries that do not belong to the trade alliance. A trade
alliance is working properly if the welfare-increasing effect is larger than the welfare-
decreasing effect, i.e. it causes a net increase in welfare. In the gravity equation, trade
creation and diversion can be measured by adding RTA dummies into the model.
Krueger (1999) investigates the trade effect under NAFTA and concludes that it was
trade-creating and not trade-diverting. The argument that RTA causes trade creation is
also supported by Endoh (2000), who investigated economic integration under APEC.
In his paper, he concludes that APEC promotes both trade with outer regions and trade
within APEC economies. Vicard (2011) conducted a global-scope case study that
covers five RTAs: the Andean community, AFTA, the EU, MERCOSUR and NAFTA.
In his study, he argues that the trade creation effect is higher if countries in the RTA
share many similar characteristics. In addition, he also adds that bilateral trade creation
between two members of an RTA is more efficient when the potential trade creation
among other partners is lower. On the other hand, Carrère (2006) suggests that an RTA
results in strengthened intra-regional trade, but it causes both import and export trade
diversions when a country trades with another country that does not belong to the same
RTA.
8
Some amount of literature also uses the gravity equation to study the main
determinants of trade flows in the ASEAN countries. Similar to many other gravity
studies, these studies also augment the traditional form of the gravity equation with
some new variables in order to test the determinants of trade. For example, a study Kien
and Hashimoto (2005) augments the equation with exchange rate in order to investigate
whether it plays an important role in determining trade in ASEAN. The result suggests
that currency depreciation in a country will increase its export competitiveness and thus
stimulate trade flows. A study by Hapsari and Mangunsong (2006) investigates the role
of tariff barriers in trade and suggests that tariff reduction has a significant effect on
increasing the bilateral exports of ASEAN member countries. It also points out that a
greater number of products may need to be included in the CEPT list to improve the
effectiveness of AFTA. Some studies also suggest that the so-called complementary
index of factor endowments is a significant factor in promoting trade flows in ASEAN
(Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004; Hapsari and Mangunsong, 2006).2
In addition to investigating the determinants of trade, the intra-regional and
extra-regional effects of AFTA also have been investigated. Elliott and Ikemoto (2004)
suggest that the effect of AFTA on trade flows was not immediate following the signing
of the AFTA agreement in 1992. They argue that this was due to the emergence of
credible competition for market share from the new exporting powers, such as China
and various South American countries. However, this result is contradictory to that of
Kien and Hashimoto (2005), who found that AFTA had an immediate impact on its
members trade flows in the years subsequent to 1992. Moreover, most gravity equation
studies also investigate whether AFTA causes trade creation or trade diversion. The
result shows strong empirical evidence that AFTA causes trade creation among its
country members (Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004; Kien and Hashimoto, 2005; Hapsari and
9
Mangunsong, 2006). Nevertheless, the evidence regarding whether AFTA exhibits
some trade diversionary effects is mixed. Hapsari and Mangunsong (2006) argue that
AFTA causes trade diversion and thus a shifting of trade from countries outside the
trade alliance to AFTA member countries. In spite of that, other studies suggest that
there is no clear evidence that supports the existence of trade diversionary effects after
the establishment of AFTA (see e.g. Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004; Kien and Hashimoto,
2005).
2.2. Gravity Equation and Economic Theories
As presented above, the gravity equation has gained empirical success because it
fits the data well. However, despite its empirical success, the gravity equation has been
criticised due to its lack of theoretical grounds. As a consequence, this leads to biased
estimations and a lack of understanding of what is causing the results (Anderson and
van Wincoop, 2003). To solve this problem, economists have been trying to find a
theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. Anderson (1979) was the first to derive
the gravity equation from economic theory. In his paper, he rearranges the Cobb-
Douglas expenditure system to derive the gravity equation by assuming that each
country produces only one specialised good and prices are the same in all countries.
Given these assumptions, the gravity equation can be obtained when consumers across
countries have identical homothetic preferences, subject to the incomes of both the
exporting and importing countries and costs related to distance.
After the work of Anderson (1979), more authors attempted to provide a link
between trade theories and the gravity equation. A study by Bergstrand (1989; 1990)
puts emphasis on product differentiation among firms rather than among countries in
order to explain bilateral trade flows. He suggests that the monopolistic competition
approach (and thus horizontal differentiation) might be a better model to explain trade
10
flows between similar countries. On the other hand, Deardorff (1995) conducted a study
from the neoclassical perspective, within a perfect competition setting. By using the
Hecksher-Ohlin (H-O) model, he argues that trade flows can be explained if product
differentiation exists at the national level. Therefore, his study is better suited to a case
in which factor endowments are different and intra-industry trade is limited, such as a
North-South type of trade.
A more recent work by Evenett and Keller (2002) further extends the idea of
product specialisation proposed by Anderson (1979) by focusing on intra-industry trade.
Their paper suggests that there are three types of trade models that differ in obtaining
product specialisation in equilibrium: 1) Ricardian models, 2) H-O models and 3)
increasing returns to scale (IRS) models. According to the logic of international trade,
countries around the world conduct exporting and importing activities because their
productions and demands are not equal in quantity and/or quality. In the process, each
country specialises itself in producing particular goods due to the different
advantageous factors acquired by each country. Evenett and Keller (2002) support this
proposition by suggesting that the volume of international trade is determined by the
extent of product specialisation, which can be due to any of the following factors:
technology differences (Ricardian models), different factor endowments (H-O models)
or increasing return to scale in production (IRS models). In this regard, they propose
that imperfect specialisation better explains the variation of trade flows, because perfect
specialisation requires large factor proportion differences, which are unnecessary. With
respect to this, they suggest that IRS models are the best theory in the gravity equation
context since they are consistent with the absence of factor proportion differences.3
Another reason why IRS models are the preferred models is that these models take into
account intra-industry trade, whereas H-O models only predict inter-industry trade.
11
In short, this part has shown that the gravity equation can be derived from a
large class of theoretical models. Nevertheless, trade flows cannot be solely determined
by any of these models since different theoretical models account for large proportions
of the observed trade flows in different circumstances (for instance, see Evenett and
Keller, 2002). Due to this, the empirical use of gravity equation to test any of these
theories is not necessary (Deardorff, 1995). Instead, many authors argue that empirical
study of the gravity equation should be focused on clarifying the determinants of trade
flows (for instance, see Filippini and Molini, 2003).
3. Methodology
3.1. Model Identification
In its traditional form, the gravity equation suggests that trade flows from country i to j
are positively related to the income of two countries and negatively related to the
distance between these two countries. For the purpose of estimation, this paper assumes
that the gravity equation is linear in natural logarithms, thus yielding the following
equation:
ln Xij = βo + β1 ln Yjt + β2 ln Yit + β3 ln Njt + ln β4 Nit + ln β5 Dij + ln uijt (1)
where Xij is the exports from country i to j, Y is income of both country i and j, N
is the population of both country i and j, and Dij is the geographical distance from
country i to country j and u is the error term.
Further, this paper also augments this traditional model of gravity equation with
some new variables to interpret the concepts of distance and mass from the economic
perspective in order to better analyse the trade performance of the ASEAN member
countries from an East Asian perspective. The first variable is income gap, which is
represented by the difference in GDP per capita between the exporting and importing
12
countries. The purpose of introducing this variable is to test the so-called Linder
hypothesis. In this case, per capita income is used as a proxy for the demand structure of
a country. Thus, countries with a smaller income gap will have more incentives to trade
with one other. In other words, this variable can be obtained by using the following
formula:
incgapijt = |GDP per capitait – GDP per capitajt| (2).
In addition to the income gap, this paper also includes two distance variables. In
its traditional form, the gravity equation only includes geographical distance to
represent the term “distance”. Nevertheless, this paper introduces three more “distance”
variables in addition to geographical distance because some authors argue that
geographical distance alone is not enough to represent the “distance” between the
exporting and importing countries (see e.g. Filippini and Molini, 2003; Melitz, 2007;
Herrera, 2010). The first variable is the cultural distance, which is represented by a
language dummy. The second is adjacency, which is characterised by a border dummy.
The third is the technological distance. Following the work of Filippini and Molini
(2003), this dissertation defines technological distance as the absolute difference of
technological indicators (TI) between the exporting and importing countries:
techdistijt = |TIit – TIjt| (3).
In this regard, Archibugi and Coco (2004) suggest that the TI or technological
capabilities of a country consist of three main dimensions, which are the creation of
technology (CoT), the technological infrastructure and the development of human skills
(i.e. TI is a simple average of these three dimensions). Firstly, the creation of
technology is a country’s capacity to produce technology. It is defined by estimating the
following formula:
(4)
13
where EXhtit are the high-tech exports of country i at time t, EXttlit are the total
manufactured exports of country i at time t, EXhtwt are the world high-tech exports at
time t and EXttlwt are the world total manufactured exports at time t.
Secondly, technological infrastructure is represented by a simple average of
Internet penetration, telephone penetration and electricity consumption. Lastly, the
development of human skills is calculated as a simple average of secondary and tertiary
enrolment rate plus literacy rate.
To make the second and third dimensions such that they can be expressed as a
value between 0 and 1, this dissertation adopts the formula used by Filippini and Molini
(2003) by converting these dimensions into indices, as follows:
(5)
where the actual value is the value of country i at time t, the maximum value is
the USA’s value at time t and the minimum value is zero.
Moreover, it is important to note that recent studies usually include the
remoteness of a country as another proxy for “distance” in order to take into account the
fact that some countries are located much further away from their trading partners than
other countries (see e.g Krueger, 1999; Anderson and van Wincoop, 2003; Carrère,
2006). Nevertheless, since this paper is concentrated on the ASEAN countries, which
are located in one geographic region, the inclusion of the remoteness of a country
becomes unnecessary (for instance, see Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004).
3.2. Econometric Specification
After taking into account the new variables presented in the previous section, the
augmented gravity equation is expressed in natural logarithmic form, as follows:
14
ln(exportsijt) = β0 + β1 ln(gdpjt) + β2 ln(gdpit) + β3 ln(popjt) + β4 ln(popit) +
β5 ln(distanceij) + β6 ln(techdistijt) + β7 ln(incgapijt) + β8
language + β9 border + αij + µijt (6)
where ln(exportsijt) is the value of exports from country i to country j in year t,
ln(gdpjt) is the GDP of the importing country j in year t, ln(gdpit) is the GDP of the
exporting country i in year t, ln(popjt) is the population of the importing country j in
year t, ln(popit) is the population of the exporting country i in year t, ln(distanceij) is the
geographical distance between the capital cities of exporting country i and importing
country j, ln(techdistijt) is the technological distance between exporting country i and
importing country j in year t, ln(incgapijt) is the gap in GDP per capita between country
i and country j in year t, language is a dummy variable that is 1 if two countries speak
the same official language and 0 otherwise and border is another dummy variable that is
1 if two countries share a common land border and 0 otherwise. β0 is the unknown
constant, αij is either a fixed or random unobserved country-pair effect and µijt is the log
normally-distributed idiosyncratic error term, where E(µijt) = 0.
From the estimation output of Equation (6), the predicted coefficients of GDP
and distance are clear due to the basic theory of gravity equation, i.e. positive
correlation for the former and negative correlation for the latter. However, in contrast to
GDP and distance, which have clear relationships with exports, the relationship between
exports and population is more complicated. If a large population represents a greater
reliance on a large domestic market because of the benefits from a large endowment of
resources, then a negative coefficient is expected. On the contrary, a positive coefficient
is expected if this huge domestic market gives an incentive for the exploitation of
economies of scale. Nevertheless, this paper assumes that the former has more influence
on trade, and thus population is expected to be negatively correlated with exports. This
15
paradox also applies to technological distance. In one hand, technological distance
could be a barrier to trade, since goods produced in one country might not be
technologically fit to be used in the other country. Nevertheless, it might also become
an incentive for trade, like the case of the four Asian Tigers with the developed world.
Hence, the expected coefficient of technological distance can be either positive or
negative. Further, the coefficient of income gap could also be positive or negative. The
sign depends on the prevalence of the Linder (1961) hypothesis in the ASEAN
countries. If the hypothesis is applicable to the ASEAN member countries, then the sign
of the income gap is expected to be negative. Otherwise, it is expected to be positive.
Further, the coefficients of border and language are intuitive, i.e. countries that share the
same language communicate smoother, where countries that share the same border can
trade less costly.
In addition to these main variables, we augment this model further with some
other dummy variables in order to examine whether AFTA causes trade creation or
trade diversion in terms of the trade interrelationships with other East Asian countries.
The first dummy is the AFTA dummy, which is 1 if both i and j countries belong to
AFTA and 0 otherwise. This paper selects a dynamic way of introducing the AFTA
dummy, following Kien and Hashimoto (2005). The objective is to capture the dynamic
formation, expansion or contraction effects of AFTA. The second and third dummies
are trade diversion dummies, i.e. AFTAim and AFTAex. The former reflects import trade
diversion (or extra-regional import bias) that occurs due to changes in the import
structure of AFTA. It equals to 1 if the importing country belongs to AFTA and 0
otherwise. On the other hand, the latter is meant to characterise the export trade
diversion (or extra-regional export bias) of AFTA to other East Asian countries. It
equals to 1 if the exporting country belongs to AFTA and 0 otherwise. In addition to
16
these FTA dummies, this paper also includes three country dummies: China03-09,
Korea03-09 and Japan03-09 to investigate whether there is a change in trade patterns
between the ASEAN member countries and their largest trade partners in the region.
4. Econometric Results and Interpretations
Equation (6) is estimated by using two sets of data. The first data set covers the ASEAN
6 member countries only. This data set consists of 30 bilateral trade flows. The use of
this data set in the estimation is aimed at seeking the main determinants of trade
amongst the ASEAN 6 economies. The second data set covers all nine countries
(ASEAN 6 + 3) and consists of 72 bilateral trade flows. From this data set, the purpose
of estimation is to examine the extra-ASEAN effects of AFTA in East Asia.
4.1. Determinants of Trade in ASEAN
This part presents the estimation results from the ASEAN 6 data set. As mentioned
earlier, the objective of this estimation is to seek the main determinants of the intra-
ASEAN trade flows. Nevertheless, before proceeding to the estimation results of
Equation (6), it is important to justify the stationarity of the variables included in the
model and thus unit root test is necessary. Following Carrère (2006) and Eita and
Ashipala (2008), this paper performs the Levin, Lin and Chu (2002) test for unit root to
test the stationarity of the following series: bilateral exports, GDP, population,
technological distance and income gap. In this test, the null states that the variable
contains a unit root. Table 2 below shows that the null of a unit is significantly rejected
at the 1% level for all variables, i.e. this confirms the stationarity of these variables.
This result implies that the cointegration test is not necessary. Thus, Equation (6) can be
estimated by using the fixed effects or random effects model.
17
Table 2. Levin Lin Chu test for panel unit root (ASEAN 6 data set)
Variables t-star t-value p-value
ln(tradeijt) −16.265 −11.241 0.000
ln(gdp) −13.498 −8.968 0.000
ln(pop) −5.309 −3.770 0.000
ln(techdistijt) −14.503 −8.145 0.000
ln(incgapijt) −11.002 −5.565 0.000
Table 3 below shows the panel estimation results of Equation (6) for the
ASEAN 6 countries. The results of the fixed effects estimation are shown in the first
column (Reg. I) and those of the random effects estimation are shown in the second
column (Reg. II). As mentioned earlier, this paper intends to use the fixed effects model
because it allows heterogeneous effects in errors. The results of the F test strengthen this
argument because it strongly rejects the null, implying the presence of fixed effects.
Moreover, the Hausman test is also performed to ensure that the fixed effects are more
favourable than the random effects in estimating the model. Since the null is
significantly rejected at the 1% level, the test shows that fixed effects estimation is more
efficient for this model.
Table 3. Modified gravity equation: determinants of ASEAN regional trade
Variables Reg. I Reg. II Reg. IIIa
Constant −24.467 ***
(6.909)
−39.792 ***
(3.540)
−24.467
(32.387)
ln(gdpit) 1.667 ***
(0.315)
1.794 ***
(0.171)
1.667
(1.262)
ln(gdpjt) 2.693 ***
(0.315)
1.740 ***
(0.171)
2.693 ***
(0.577)
ln(popit) −1.425 *
(0.791)
−0.570 ***
(0.119)
−1.425
(3.838)
18
ln(popjt) −2.256 ***
(0.791)
−0.578 ***
(0.119)
−2.256
(1.767)
ln(distanceij) −
−0.856 ***
(0.302) −
ln(incgapijt) −0.326 ***
(0.108)
−0.357 ***
(0.091)
−0.326 **
(0.126)
ln(techdistijt) −0.293 ***
(0.050)
−0.283 ***
(0.050)
−0.293 **
(0.134)
language −
0.390
(0.315) −
border −
0.063
(0.361) −
F-test 85.29 80.62
LM test 726.06
Hausman test 35.47
R2 within 0.45 0.44 0.45
R2 between 0.01 0.84 0.01
R2 overall 0.03 0.74 0.03
No. of obs (NT) 660 660 660
No. of bilateral (N) 30 30 30
***, ** and * are significant at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively and standard errors
are presented in parentheses. a For the third column, the figures in parentheses are the cluster-robust standard errors for the
fixed effects estimator.
Given the results of these specification tests, the interpretation is focused on the
fixed effects model. Reg. I shows that the results of the fixed effects estimation are
consistent with economic theory and expectations. The positive and significant signs of
the GDP of both the exporting and importing countries imply that wealthier countries
trade more. On the contrary, the coefficients of the population variables are negative
and significant, showing that large domestic markets represent bigger absorption effects
and less reliance on imported goods. Income gap is also statistically significant and
negatively correlated with exports, favouring the prevalence of the Linder hypothesis in
19
the ASEAN member countries. In other words, the ASEAN member countries that have
more similar levels of income per capita tend to trade more. Moreover, the coefficient
of technological distance shows a positive and significant sign at the 1% level. This
result is consistent with that of Filippini and Molini (2003) and implies that greater
technological gaps discourage bilateral trade flows. In addition to these time-variant
variables, there are three time-invariant variables in the model: geographical distance,
language and border. Nevertheless, these variables are dropped from the model because
the fixed effects model does not allow for estimating time-invariant variables.
To ensure that this result is consistent and unbiased, it is necessary to confirm
that the estimates do not suffer from serial correlation and/or heteroscedasticity. The
presence of either of these two problems violates one of the assumptions of the fixed
effects model: constant variance, i.e. V(ui|Xi, ci) = I, where > 0 and < ∞.
Therefore, the Wooldridge test for autocorrelation and the modified Wald test for
groupwise heteroscedasticity were conducted. The results show strong rejections of the
null in both tests and therefore confirm the presence of serial correlation and
heteroscedasticity in the data (see Appendix 1 for details). As the consequence, the
result of fixed effects estimation becomes inconsistent, and the estimated variances (and
thus standard errors) are no longer valid. To correct these problems, this dissertation
follows the approach used by Melitz (2007) by treating each country pair as a cluster in
order to estimate the correct standard errors with the Huber/White cluster-robust
covariance estimator.
The results of this model are shown in the third column of Table 3 (Reg. III).
Since this estimation causes the standard errors to be bigger, some variables become
insignificant, even though the signs remain the same. The coefficient of the exporting
country’s GDP becomes statistically insignificant. However, the coefficient of the
20
importing country’s GDP remains significant at the 1% rejection level. The populations
of both the exporting and importing countries are also no longer statistically significant.
Nevertheless, income gap and technological distance are still significant at the 5%
rejection level. The F-test also strongly rejects the null, which justifies the presence of a
correlation between the explanatory variables and heterogeneous effects in errors.
In short, this section of the dissertation has investigated the determinants of
intra-ASEAN trade. The estimation results in this part show that the importer’s GDP is
positively correlated with trade flows and statistically significant. In addition, it also
shows that more similar levels of technological advancement and per capita income will
increase the flow of trade between countries.
4.2. AFTA: Trade Diversion or Trade Creation?
Now, the focus of the estimation shifts from intra-ASEAN trade to extra-ASEAN trade.
Thus, the objective of the following estimations is to evaluate the impact of AFTA on
its member countries and their trade interrelationships with other East Asian countries.
Therefore, in addition to the ASEAN 6 member countries, it also includes three
additional non-member countries: China, South Korea and Japan. Since this data set is
different from the previous one, another Levin, Lin and Chu (2002) test for the unit root
is conducted. Table 4 shows the results of this test. Similar to the previous results, this
test significantly rejects the null of the unit root for all variables. As the stationarity of
the series are confirmed, this dissertation can now proceed to the panel data estimation,
without conducting a cointegration test.
Table 4. Levin Lin Chu test for panel unit root (ASEAN 6 + 3 data set)
Variables t-star t-star p-value
ln(tradeijt) −15.670 −8.605 0.000
21
ln(gdp) −9.828 −5.503 0.000
ln(pop) −4.547 −3.169 0.000
ln(techdistijt) −32.947 −26.506 0.000
ln(incgapijt) −10.287 −3.287 0.000
Table 5 presents the panel estimation results of Equation (6) that are augmented
with the AFTA and country dummy variables. First, the estimation is focused on the
impact of AFTA on the trade activities of the ASEAN member countries. To do this
estimation, three dummy variables are included in the model: AFTA, AFTAim and
AFTAex. Later, the model includes country dummies to investigate the changes in trade
patterns with China, Japan and South Korea.
Table 5. Modified gravity equation: Trade creation and trade diversion Variables Reg. IV Reg. V Reg. VIa Reg. VII Reg. VIII Reg. IXb
Constant −33.906 ***
(5.419)
−31.081 ***
(2.336)
−33.906 ***
(21.256)
−41.305 ***
(4.658)
−26.916 ***
(1.881)
−26.916 ***
(13.621)
ln(gdpit) 1.276 ***
(0.108)
1.288 ***
(0.074)
1.276 ***
(0.346)
1.036 ***
(0.120)
1.244 ***
(0.065)
1.244 ***
(0.083)
ln(gdpjt) 1.765 ***
(0.108)
1.556 ***
(0.074)
1.765 ***
(0.248)
1.438 ***
(0.120)
1.388 ***
(0.065)
1.388 ***
(0.138)
ln(popit) 0.352
(0.369)
−0.349 ***
(0.078)
0.352
(1.613)
0.457
(0.341)
−0.326 ***
(0.064)
−0.326 ***
(0.104)
ln(popjt) −1.616 ***
(0.369)
−0.484 ***
(0.078)
−1.616 **
(0.760)
−0.464
(0.395)
−0.387 ***
(0.064)
−0.387 ***
(0.122)
ln(distanceij) −
−0.654 ***
(0.228) − −
−0.755 ***
(0.169)
−0.755 ***
(0.264)
ln(incgapijt) −0.185 ***
(0.057)
−0.240 ***
(0.052)
−0.185 **
(0.088)
−0.180 ***
(0.056)
−0.243 ***
(0.050)
−0.243 ***
(0.068)
ln(techdistijt) −0.040
(0.026)
−0.038
(0.026)
−0.040
(0.089)
−0.032
(0.025)
−0.019
(0.026)
−0.019
(0.087)
language −
1.271 ***
(0.360) − −
1.238 ***
(0.271)
1.238 ***
(0.380)
border −
0.275
(0.505) − −
0.240
(0.381)
0.240
(0.549)
AFTA 0.551 ***
(0.164)
0.512 ***
(0.161)
0.551 **
(0.240) − − −
AFTAim 0.024
(0.113)
−0.059
(0.103)
0.024
(0.136) − − −
22
AFTAex −0.510 ***
(0.113)
−0.324 ***
(0.103)
−0.510 **
(0.255) − − −
China03-09 − − −
0.518 ***
(0.111)
0.482 ***
(0.098)
0.482 **
(0.206)
Japan03-09 − − −
−0.195 **
(0.085)
−0.213 **
(0.088)
−0.213 **
(0.085)
Korea03-09 − − −
−0.097
(0.091)
−0.075
(0.090)
−0.075
(0.073)
F-test 221.04 117.57 223.04
LM test 7377.67 7832.72
Hausman
test
37.78 15.23
R2 within 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
R2 between 0.19 0.70 0.19 0.48 0.70 0.70
R2 overall 0.21 0.67 0.21 0.47 0.67 0.67
No. of obs
(NT) 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584
No. of
bilateral (N) 72 72 72 72 72 72
***, ** and * are significant at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively and standard errors are presented in parentheses. a For the third column, the figures in parentheses are the cluster-robust standard errors for the fixed effects estimator. b For the sixth column, the figures in parentheses are the cluster-robust standard errors for the random effects estimator.
Similar to the test results in the previous estimation, the results of the Hausman
test imply that the fixed effects model is the preferred model for this estimation. Hence,
the results interpretation is more focused on the fixed effects model (Reg. IV). Overall,
the results are consistent with the previous estimation. The coefficients of the GDP’s of
both the exporting and importing countries remain significant at the 1% level. The
coefficient of the population of the exporting country becomes positive, but statistically
insignificant. Nevertheless, the population of the importing country remains negatively
correlated with exports and significant at the 1% level. Income gap has a negative
coefficient and is statistically significant, implying that the presence of the Linder
hypothesis is still remarkable in the East Asian context. Technological distance,
however, is statistically insignificant, despite the negative coefficient.
The AFTA dummy, as expected, is significant and has a positive sign, thus
implying the presence of trade creation. The AFTAim dummy, however, is not
23
significant, despite the positive coefficient. This result shows that there is no evidence
of extra-regional import bias after the establishment of AFTA. On the other hand,
AFTAex is statistically significant with a negative sign, which implies export trade
diversion after the establishment of AFTA in 1992. In other words, this result suggests
that there has been a shift in the pattern of exports since some trade flows between the
ASEAN member countries and non-member countries were replaced with trade flows
amongst the ASEAN member countries.
Next, specification tests are conducted to check for the presence of
heteroscedasticity and serial correlation. This time, both heteroscedasticity and serial
correlation also exist because the nulls of homoscedasticity and no serial correlation are
strongly rejected at the 1% level (see Appendix 1.2). Hence, similar to the previous
cases, the model is re-estimated with the cluster-robust covariance estimator to obtain
the correct standard errors. The results of this estimation are shown in the third column
of table 5 (Reg. VI). Even after treating the problems of heteroscedasticity and serial
correlation, the results do not show any significant changes. All variables that were
significant in the ordinary fixed effects model are also significant in the clustered fixed
effects model. In short, this result confirms that there was trade creation among the
ASEAN member countries after the establishment of AFTA in 1992. Furthermore, it
also verifies the presence of export diversion, because the coefficient of AFTAex
remains statistically significant after the cluster treatment.
The last estimation in this dissertation includes all the country dummies in the
model and also follows the same estimation procedure and specification tests. After
estimating both the fixed effects (Reg. VII) and random effects (VIII) models, the
Hausman test is conducted. This time, the test fails to reject the null at the 5% level.
Therefore, the random effects estimators are used because the fixed effects estimators
24
have become inefficient. To support this result, the Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier
test is undertaken and the result rejects the null significantly at the 1% level, implying
that there is not equality of the individual effects, i.e. it accepts the presence of random
effects. Consequentially, the random effects model is used because it does not model
each individual effect explicitly. Moreover, similar to the previous results, the
specification tests show that heteroscedasticity and serial correlation are also present in
this estimation (see Appendix 1.3). As a consequence, the random effects model is re-
estimated using the Huber/White cluster-robust covariance estimator in order to obtain
the correct standard errors.
The results are presented in the last column of table 5 (Reg. IX). Despite the
bigger standard errors due to the clustering treatment, most of the variables are still
significant. The GDP coefficients of both the exporting and importing countries are
significant at the 1% level. The population coefficients are also statistically significant
with negative signs. However, a closer investigation shows that the magnitude of the
importing country’s population is much smaller as compared to that in Reg. VI. Other
variables show relatively similar results as compared to Reg. VI: income gap is
statistically significant with a negative coefficient, while technological distance is
statistically insignificant.
In addition, since the random effects model can estimate the time-invariant
variables, it takes into account the variables that are dropped from the fixed effects
model. These variables are geographical distance, language and borders. The coefficient
of geographical distance appears to be negative and statistically significant, as expected.
Hence, this result suggests that greater geographical distance causes higher
transportation costs and thus discourages bilateral trade between two countries. In
contrast, language, which represents cultural distance, is positively correlated with
25
exports and significant at the 1% level. In other words, language similarity allows both
countries to communicate more easily, hence it eases the process of trade transactions.
Another time-invariant variable is border. However, it is statistically insignificant, even
though it has a positive coefficient.
Another important factor is the country dummies. The coefficient of China is
positive and statistically significant. The coefficient of Japan is negative and significant
at the 5% level. This result is evidence that, from 2003 to 2009, Japan exhibited a
general negative propensity to export to and import from East Asian countries. On the
other hand, the rise of China has enabled it to take over larger shares of East Asian
markets from Japan during the same period of time. Lastly, the Korea dummy shows a
positive sign, but is not statistically significant.
To sum up, this section of the dissertation has shown the determinants of trade in
the ASEAN 6 + 3 economies. Most of the included variables are statistically significant
and have the expected signs. Moreover, it also detected the presence of both trade
creation and trade diversion after the establishment of AFTA, even though the
magnitude of trade creation is larger than that of trade diversion. Further, it shows
intensified trade flows between China and other East Asian partners between 2003 and
2009.
5. Further Discussions and Analysis
This part presents further discussion to clarify some of the issues found in the previous
section. First, even though the fixed effects estimations cannot include time-invariant
variables in the model, the random effects estimation (Reg. IX) shows that geographical
distance and language are significant determinants of trade in the context of the ASEAN
6 + 3 economies. While geographical distance represents the main impediment to trade
flows, language similarity increases the flow of trade. One remarkable fact is that, even
26
though global transportation infrastructure has been improving rapidly in the last
decades, some ASEAN member countries still have inadequate transportation
infrastructure. Improved transportation infrastructure, such as providing more efficient
customs, logistics and transportation procedures, may be able to reduce the effect of
geographical distance as an obstacle to trade. On the other hand, the positive coefficient
of language implies that two countries that speak the same language will be able to
communicate and conduct international transactions efficiently and thus increase trade
flows
The second discussion regards the significance of income gap. The negative
relationship between trade and income gap shows that this estimation is in favour of the
Linder hypothesis not only in the case of trade among the ASEAN 6 countries, but also
in trade interrelationships among the ASEAN 6 + 3 countries. Therefore, this result
supports most of previous studies that tried to detect the presence of the Linder
hypothesis in the flows of trade (see e.g. Thursby and Thursby, 1987; McPherson et al.,
2001; Hallak, 2006). In this regard, however, McPherson et al. (2001) point out that
there is one important note that is worthy of consideration regarding the inclusion of the
income gap variable into the gravity equation. In their paper, McPherson et al. (2001)
argue that the Linder hypothesis was originally intended to be applicable only to
manufactured goods. Thus, in the case where manufactured goods do not play an
important role in the flows of trade, the use of the income gap variable may lead to a
biased conclusion in regard to accepting or rejecting the presence of the Linder
hypothesis. In the case of the East Asian region, rapid industrialization in most East
Asian countries, which was followed by improved technological capability, has made
the region able to increase the share of manufactured goods in terms of total exports.
According to UN COMTRADE database (2011), manufactured goods accounted for
27
more than 60% of total traded commodities between 1988 and 2009 in ASEAN + 3
countries. As the consequence, this large share of manufactured goods in terms of total
exports confirms that the test to check for the presence of the Linder hypothesis is
appropriate for this study.
Third, unlike the income gap, technological distance is only significant in Reg.
III. One possible explanation for this result is due to the limited availability of data. As
mentioned earlier, the use of linear interpolation in filling in the missing values might
affect the data quality and estimation result. From a theoretical point of view, however,
this result requires further investigation.
Lastly, the discussion is aimed at analysing the effects of AFTA on trade in East
Asia. Kitwiwattanachai et al. (2010) point out that FTA’s in general result in both trade
creation and trade diversion, and if there are more countries that join the FTA, then both
of these effects tend to become larger. Therefore, what is more important is to examine
whether the establishment of AFTA has increased or decreased net welfare. The net
change in welfare can be obtained by calculating the difference between trade creation
and trade diversion. Reg. VI shows that the establishment of AFTA has increased intra-
regional trade flows to a higher level of 0.551, which implies that the intra-ASEAN 6
trade flows have increased by 73.5% since the establishment of AFTA, i.e. this result
shows that AFTA partners prefer to trade with other AFTA partners. This result is
smaller than that of the study by Elliott and Ikemoto (2004), but consistent with a more
recent study by Kien and Hashimoto (2005). One possible explanation for this
difference is partly due to the pooled cross-sectional model used by Eliiott and Ikemoto
(2004). As mentioned earlier, pooled cross-sectional models neglect the unobserved
heterogonous factors in errors. Thus, they may lead to a different estimation result.
28
In addition to trade creation, the estimation in this dissertation also shows the
presence of export trade diversion after the establishment of AFTA. The results in Reg.
VI exhibit the fact that extra-regional exports under AFTA have decreased to a lower
level of 0.510. In other words, it implies that AFTA has reduced export flows from the
ASEAN 6 economies to China, Japan and South Korea by as much as 66.5%. This
result meets the expectation of Cuyvers and Pupphavesa (1996) and supports the finding
of Hapsari and Mangunsong (2006), but is inconsistent some other studies (Elliott and
Ikemoto, 2004; Kien and Hashimoto, 2005). Elliott and Ikemoto (2004) argue that the
lack of any trade diversionary effects in their study is due to changes in the real
exchange rates of the ASEAN member countries after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
The devaluation of the ASEAN currencies following the crisis that struck in 1997
caused exports to become less expensive and imports to become more expensive. This
might have increased the products competitiveness of the ASEAN member countries
and increased the flows of exports from these countries to other East Asian countries.
Nevertheless, their paper uses data that only cover the period between 1983 and
1999. Therefore, the estimation results only capture the impact of AFTA until two years
after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, when the ASEAN economies were still severely
affected by the crisis. On the other hand, this paper covers a longer time period. Thus, it
captures the effects of AFTA over a longer term in order to give a more comprehensive
understanding. Appendix 2 shows that, after they recovered from the crisis, there was a
modest currency appreciation in the ASEAN 6 countries between 2003 and 2008 (prior
to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis), particularly in Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia,
Singapore and Thailand. This appreciation might have reduced the export
competitiveness of the ASEAN member countries and led to export trade diversion.
Another explanation is simply that countries are usually averse to FTA’s in which they
29
are not included (Kitwiwattanachai et al., 2010). In this case, since China, Japan and
South Korea are not member countries of AFTA, this aversion occurs and causes the
trade diversionary effect.
In summary, from a welfare perspective, AFTA has increased the welfare of its
member countries through trade creation and simultaneously reduced the welfare of
non-member countries through trade diversion, particularly if the diversion is caused by
the shifting of the more efficient countries from outside the bloc to the less efficient
countries inside the bloc. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the overall East Asian
region, the net welfare impacts of AFTA are still welfare-increasing because the effects
of trade creation are still bigger than those of trade diversion.
6. Conclusion
This study has revealed important findings about the main determinants of trade in the
ASEAN 6 countries and the impacts of AFTA on East Asian trade flows. The main
finding of this paper shows that AFTA has brought many benefits to its member
countries through the rapid creation of trade. Nevertheless, the benefits to its member
countries have come at the expense of non-member countries, in this case: China, South
Korea and Japan. In order to minimise these trade diversionary effects on other East
Asian counties, this paper proposes the establishment of a broader scope FTA, such as
an ASEAN 6 + 3 FTA. Fortunately, an attempt at achieving this goal has been made by
expanding the FTA in the East Asian region through the aggressive formation of AC-
FTA. Therefore, further studies should investigate whether AC-FTA can reduce the
impacts of trade diversion on the East Asian region. In addition, it also should be
facilitated by more complete data availability in order to allow for a more sophisticated
study and obtain more efficient results.
30
1 Newer ASEAN members (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam) also joined AFTA in
the following years. These countries were given some flexibility in achieving its goals, due
to their less developed economies.
2 The complementary index is a variable used to examine whether factor endowments between
two countries are complementary. The positive and significant result of this variable in the
equation shows that higher complementariness of factor endowments of two countries
intensifies bilateral trade in these countries (for instance, see Deardorff, 1984; Ng and
Yeats, 2003).
3 In their paper, Evenett and Keller (2002) contend that product specialisation in the IRS models
occurs for arbitrary differences in factor proportions, whereas H-O models require large
differences in factor proportions to encourage product specialisation. Since the assumption
of large factor proportions differences is unnecessary, they suggest that IRS models are
preferred in the gravity equation context.
31
References
Anderson, J.E. (1979) A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation, The American
Economic Review, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 106-116.
Anderson, J.E. & van Wincoop, E. (2003) Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the
border puzzle, American Economic Review, vol. 93, pp. 170–192.
Archibugi, D. & Coco, A. (2004) A new indicator of technological capabilities for
developed and developing countries, World Development, vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
629-654.
Ariff, M. (1994) Open regionalism a la ASEAN, Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 5,
pp. 99-117.
ASEAN Secretariat. (1999) ASEAN Free Trade Area: An Update, ASEAN Secretariat
[Online] Available: <http://www.aseansec.org/7665.htm> [Accessed: 8 June
2011].
________. (2002) South East Asia: A Free Trade Area, ASEAN Secretariat [Online],
Available: <http://www.aseansec.org/pdf/afta.pdf> [Accessed: 8 June 2011].
________. (2005) ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2005, ASEAN Secretariat [Online],
Available: <http://www.asean.org/18175.htm> [Accessed: 28 June 2011].
________. (2007) The Twenty-First Meeting of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)
Council, ASEAN Secretariat [Online], Available:
<http://www.aseansec.org/20862.htm> [Accessed: 8 June 2011].
Awokuse, T.O. & Yin. H. (2010) Does stronger intellectual property rights protection
induce more bilateral trade? Evidence from China’s imports, World
Development, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1094-1104.
Baldwin, R. & Taglioni, D. (2006) Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity
equations, National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper Series,
no.12516.
Baltagi, B.H., Egger, P. & Pfaffermaryr, M. (2003) A generalised design for bilateral
trade flow models, Economics Letters, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 391-397.
32
Bergstrand, J.H. (1989) The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition,
and the factor-proportions theory in international trade, The Review of
Economics and Statistics, vol. 71, pp. 143–153.
Bergstrand, J.H. (1990) The Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuelson model, the Linder hypothesis
and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade, The Economic Journal,
vol. 100, pp. 1216–1229.
Cabalu, H. & Alfonso, C. (2007) Does AFTA Create or Divert Trade?, Global Economy
Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, art. 6.
Carrère, C. (2006) Revisiting the effects of regional trade agreements on trade flows
with proper specification of the gravity model, European Economic Review, vol.
50, pp. 223-247.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2011). The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency
[Online], Available: <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/> [Accessed: 18 June 2011].
Chiou, Y. (2010) A two-level-games analysis of AFTA agreements: What caused
ASEAN states to move towards economic integration?, Journal of Current
Southeast Asian Affairs, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 5-49.
Cuyvers, L. & Pupphavesa, W. (1996) From ASEAN to AFTA, CAS Discussion Paper
No. 6, September 1996.
Deardorff, A.V. (1984) Testing Trade Theories and Predicting Trade Flows. Handbook
of International Economics, Jones, R.W. & Kenon, P (eds), Volume 1, Elsevier
Science Publishers, Amerstam.
________. (1995) Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical
world?. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, no.
5377.
Edwards, R. & Skully, M. (eds) (1996) ASEAN Business, Trade & Development,
Butterworth-Heineman, Singapore.
Egger, P. (2000) A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation,
Economics Letter, vol. 66, pp. 25-31.
33
Eita, J.H. & Ashipala, J.M. (2008) Estimating Namibia’s Export Potential: A Gravity
Model Approach, UNDP Research Report, UNDP, Windhoek.
Elliott, R.J.R. & Ikemoto, K. (2004) AFTA and the Asian Crisis: Help or hindrance to
ASEAN intra-regional trade?, Asian Economic Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-23.
Endoh, M. (1999) Trade creation and trade diversion in the EEC, the LAFTA and the
CMEA: 1960-1994, Applied Economics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 207-216.
________. (2000) The transition of postwar Asia-Pacific trade relations, Journal of
Asian Economics, vol. 10, pp. 571-589.
Evenett, J. S., & Keller, W. (2002) On theories explaining the success of the gravity
equation, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 281–316.
Filippini, C. & Molini, V. (2003) The determinants of East Asian trade flows: A gravity
equation approach, Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 14, pp. 695-711.
Garnaut, R. & Drysdale, P. (1994) Asia-Pacific Regionalism: The Issues, in Asia-
Pacific Regionalism: Readings in International Economic Relations, R. Garnaut
& P. Drysdale (eds.), Harper Educational Publishers, Sydney, pp. 1-7.
Hallak, J.C. (2006) Product quality and the direction of trade, Journal of International
Economics, vol. 68, pp. 238-265.
Hapsari, I.M. &Mangunsong, C. (2006) Determinants of AFTA members’ trade flows
and potential for trade diversion, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network
on Trade Working Paper Series, no. 21.
Herrera, E.G. (2010) Are estimation techniques neutral to estimate gravity equations?,
The Papers, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the
University of Granada, no. 10/05.
Indo.com. (2011) Distance, Indo.com [Online], Available: <http://indo.com/distance/>
[Accessed: 14 June 2011].
Jugurnath, B., Stewart, M. & Brooks, R. (2007) Asia/Pacific Regional Trade
Agreements: An empirical study, Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 18, pp. 974-
987.
34
Kavallari, A., Maas, S. & Schmitz, P.M. (2008) Explaining German imports of Olive
oil: evidence from a gravity model, paper presented at The 12th EAAE Congress,
Gent, Belgium, 26-29 August.
Kien, N.T. & Hashimoto, Y. (2005) Economic Analysis of ASEAN Free Trade Area: By
a Country Panel, Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 05-12, Osaka
University, Graduate School of Economics and Osaka School of International
Public Policy (OSIPP).
Kitwiwattanachai, A., Nelson, D. & Reed, G. (2010) Quantitative impacts of alternative
East Asia Free Trade Areas: A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE)
assessment, Journal of Policy Modeling, vol. 32, pp. 286-301.
Krueger, A.O. (1999) Trade creation and trade diversion under NAFTA, National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, no. 7429.
Levin, A., Lin, C.F. & Chu, C. (2002) Unit roots tests in panel data: Asymptotic and
finite sample properties, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 108, pp. 1-24.
Linder, S. B. (1961) An Essay on Trade and Transformation, Almqvist & Wiksell,
Stockholm.
Linnemann, H. (1966) An econometric study of international trade flows, North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Mátyás, L. (1998) The gravity model: Some econometric consideration, The World
Economy, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 397-401.
McCallum, J. (1995) National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns,
The American Economic Review, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 615-623.
McPherson, M.A., Redfearn, M.R. & Tieslau, M.A. (2001) International trade and
developing countries: An empirical investigation of the Linder hypothesis,
Applied Economics, vol. 33, pp. 649-657.
Melitz, J. (2007) North, south and distance in the gravity model, European Economic
Review, vol. 51, pp. 971-991.
Ng, F. & Yeats, A. (2003) Major trade trends in East Asia: What are their implications
for regional cooperation and growth, World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper Series, no. 3084.
35
Palma, J.G. (2009) Flying Geese and Waddling Ducks: The different capabilities of East
Asia and Latin America to ‘demand-adapt’ and ‘supply-upgrade’ their export
productive capacity, in Industrial Policy and Development: The Political
Economy of Capabilities Accumulation, Cimoli et al. (eds.), Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 203-238.
Pangestu, M., Soesastro, H. & Ahmad, M. (1992) A new look at intra-ASEAN
economic cooperation, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 333-352.
Plummer, M.G. (2009) Special issue JAE 25th ACAES conference selected papers
Asian economic integration in a global context, Journal of Asian Economics,
vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 203-204.
Thursby, J.G. & Thursby, M.C. (1987) Bilateral trade flows, the Linder hypothesis and
exchange risk, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 488-
495.
Tinbergen, J. (1962) Shaping the World Economy, The Twentieth Century Fund, New
York.
United Nations Commodity Trade. (2011) Date retrieved 8 June 2011, from United
Nations Comodity Trade (UN Comtrade) Statistics database.
Vicard, V. (2011) Determinants of successful regional trade agreements, Economics
Letters, vol. 111, pp. 188-190.
World Bank. (2011) Date retrieved 13 June 2011, from World Development Indicators
(WDI) online database.
World Trade Organisation. (2000) Mapping of Regional Trade Agreements,
WT/REG/W/41, World Trade Organisation, Geneva.
36
Appendices
Appendix 1. Specification Tests
Appendix 1.1. Specification tests for Reg. I – Reg. III
Wooldridge test for serial correlation in panel data
Null Hypothesis F-test p-value
No first order serial correlation 74.219 0.000
Modified Wald test for groupwise heteroscedasticity
Null Hypothesis χ2 p-value
Constant variance (homoscedastic) 32508.65 0.000
Appendix 1.2. Specification tests for Reg. IV – Reg. VI
Wooldridge test for serial correlation in panel data
Null Hypothesis F-test p-value
No first order serial correlation 83.733 0.000
Modified Wald test for groupwise heteroscedasticity
Null Hypothesis χ2 p-value
Constant variance (homoscedastic) 61364.21 0.000
37
Appendix 1.3. Specification tests for Reg. VII – Reg. IX
Wooldridge test for serial correlation in panel data
Null Hypothesis F-test p-value
No first order serial correlation 82.832 0.000
Modified Wald test for groupwise heteroscedasticity
Null Hypothesis χ2 p-value
Constant variance (homoscedastic) 87333.84 0.000
38
App
reci
atio
n
Dep
reci
atio
n
Appendix 2. ASEAN 6 Official Exchange Rates
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators online database
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brunei Darussalam!
0!
2000!
4000!
6000!
8000!
10000!
12000!
1993!
1994!
1995!
1996!
1997!
1998!
1999!
2000!
2001!
2002!
2003!
2004!
2005!
2006!
2007!
2008!
2009!
Indonesia
0!0.5!1!1.5!2!2.5!3!3.5!4!4.5!
1993!
1994!
1995!
1996!
1997!
1998!
1999!
2000!
2001!
2002!
2003!
2004!
2005!
2006!
2007!
2008!
2009!
Malaysia!
0!
10!
20!
30!
40!
50!
60!1993!
1994!
1995!
1996!
1997!
1998!
1999!
2000!
2001!
2002!
2003!
2004!
2005!
2006!
2007!
2008!
2009!
Philippines!
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
1993!
1994!
1995!
1996!
1997!
1998!
1999!
2000!
2001!
2002!
2003!
2004!
2005!
2006!
2007!
2008!
2009!
Singapore!
0!
10!
20!
30!
40!
50!
1993!
1994!
1995!
1996!
1997!
1998!
1999!
2000!
2001!
2002!
2003!
2004!
2005!
2006!
2007!
2008!
2009!
Thailand!