Advertisement

Has China replaced colonial trade?

  • Laurent Didier
  • Pamina Koenig
Original Paper
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

China is often suspected of taking over the extraordinary trade relationships that former colonies had within colonial empires. Besides preferential bilateral relationships built after independence, the two other potential determinants of the increase in trade with China are the improvement in China’s export capacity and the natural redirection caused by independence. We investigate and quantify the three reasons that explain the level of former colonies’ trade flows with China. Using structural gravity equations, we show that methodological issues can be largely responsible for displaying and estimating abnormally high trade levels between former colonies and China. Increased trade between these pairs of countries is the result of unilateral factors rather than more intense bilateral preferences. We then measure the reorientation of trade flows from former colonies’ metropoles towards China and show that independence has produced the expected redistribution: trade flows with China would be 15\(\%\) lower, had former colonies not become independent.

Keywords

Colonial trade Gravity equation China Multilateral resistance Bilateral effects 

JEL Classification

F1 F54 

References

  1. Anderson, J. E., & Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. The American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. E., & Yotov, Y. V. (2010). The changing incidence of geography. The American Economic Review, 100(5), 2157–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the united states. The American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121–2168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2001). The growth of world trade: Tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity. Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baier, S. L., Bergstrand, J. H., & Feng, M. (2014). Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 93(2), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2007). Trade effects of the euro: A comparison of estimators. Journal of Economic, Integration, 780–818.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, D., Easterly, W., Nunn, N., & Satyanath, S. (2013). Commercial imperialism? Political influence and trade during the cold war. The American Economic Review, 103(2), 863–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berthou, A., & Ehrhart, H. (2017). Trade networks and colonial trade spillovers. Review of International Economics, 25(4), 891–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaney, T. (2014). The network structure of international trade. The American Economic Review, 104(11), 3600–3634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cipollina, M., & Salvatici, L. (2010). Reciprocal trade agreements in gravity models: A meta-analysis. Review of International Economics, 18(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costinot, A., & Rodríguez-Clare, A. (2014). Trade theory with numbers: Quantifying the consequences of globalization. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 197–261). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Di Giovanni, J., Levchenko, A. A., & Zhang, J. (2014). The global welfare impact of China: Trade integration and technological change. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 6(3), 153–183.Google Scholar
  13. Disdier, A.-C., & Head, K. (2008). The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. The Review of Economics and statistics, 90(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feenstra, R. C., Markusen, J. R., & Rose, A. K. (2001). Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34(2), 430–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs, A., & Klann, N.-H. (2013). Paying a visit: The Dalai Lama effect on international trade. Journal of International Economics, 91(1), 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glick, R., & Taylor, A. M. (2010). Collateral damage: Trade disruption and the economic impact of war. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 102–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Chapter 3, Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131–95). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Head, K., Mayer, T., & Ries, J. (2010). The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. Journal of International Economics, 81(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsieh, C.-T., & Ossa, R. (2016). A global view of productivity growth in China. Journal of International Economics, 102, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller, W., Li, B., & Shiue, C. H. (2013). Shanghai’s trade, China’s growth: Continuity, recovery, and change since the opium wars. IMF Economic Review, 61(2), 336–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavallée, E., & Lochard, J. (2015). The comparative effects of independence on trade. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(3), 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nitsch, V. (2007). State visits and international trade. The World Economy, 30(12), 1797–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rauch, J. E. (2001). Business and social networks in international trade. Journal of Economic, literature, 1177–1203.Google Scholar
  25. Silva, J. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Storesletten, K., & Zilibotti, F. (2014). Chinas great convergence and beyond. The Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEMOI University of La ReunionSt DenisFrance
  2. 2.University of Rouen and Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations