Review of World Economics

, Volume 155, Issue 2, pp 353–406 | Cite as

Economic integration agreements, immigrants and trade costs

  • Bedassa TadesseEmail author
  • Roger White
Original Paper


Using data on the levels of economic integration agreements (EIAs) among 172 countries (35 OECD members and 137 non-members) that span the years 1995–2009, we examine the effects of immigrants and EIA levels on bilateral trade costs between immigrants’ host and home countries and whether the influence of immigrants on trade costs varies across types of EIAs. Results obtained from the estimation of a series of augmented gravity specifications using the multi-level mixed effects model (random intercepts and coefficients) indicate that increases in the level of EIA and in the stock of immigrants are associated with declines in bilateral trade costs (measured both at the aggregate level and across sectors). However, the trade costs-reduction effect of immigrants varies non-linearly with the extent to which their host and home countries are integrated. While heterogeneous across country pairs, the effect of immigrants on trade costs remains strong even among country pairs at the peak EIA level, implying that the effects of immigrants on international economic interactions is both expansive and broader than often understood.


Economic integration agreements (EIA) Globalization Immigrants Mixed effects model Trade costs 

JEL Classification

F14 F15 F22 



  1. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvis, J., Duval, Y., & Utoktham, C. (2013). Trade costs in the developing world: 1995–2010 (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6309). The World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Baier, S., & Bergstrand, J. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier, S., Bergstrand, J., & Clance, M. (2017). Heterogeneous economic integration agreements’ effects, gravity, and welfare. Research paper series on political economy of globalization (Research Paper 2017/05).Google Scholar
  5. Baier, S., Bergstrand, J., & Feng, M. (2014). Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 93(2), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrand, J. (2017). Database on economic integration agreements. Accessed April, 2017.
  7. Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). (2017). Gravity dataset. Accessed April 1, 2017.
  8. Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalization—Gauging its consequences. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new database. Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duval, Y. Neufeld, N., & Utoktham, C. (2016). Do trade facilitation provisions in regional trade agreements matter? Impact on trade costs and multilateral spillovers. Asia-Pacific research and training network on trade (ARTNeT) (Working Paper Series 164).Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, R., & Pienknagura, S. (2016). Are all trade agreements equal? The role of distance in shaping the effect of economic integration agreements on trade flows (World Bank Group, Policy and Research Working Paper #7809).Google Scholar
  12. Gaston, N., & Nelson, D. (2013). International migration. In D. Bernhofen, R. Falvey, D. Greenaway, & U. Kreickemeier (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of international trade. London: Palgrave Macmillin UK.Google Scholar
  13. Genc, M. (2014). The impact of migration on trade. IZA World of Labor. Scholar
  14. Goldberg, P., & Pavcnik, N. (2016). The effects of trade policy. In K. Bagwell & R. W. Staiger (Eds.), The handbook of commercial policy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2000). Non-Europe: The magnitude and causes of market fragmentation in Europe. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv/review of World Economics, 136(2), 285–314.Google Scholar
  16. Head, K., & Ries, J. (1998). Immigration and trade creation: Econometric evidence for Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Novy, D. (2013). Gravity redux: Measuring international trade costs with panel data. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). International migration database. Accessed September, 2017.
  19. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tadesse, B., Shukralla, E., & Fayissa, B. (2017). Are bilateral and multilateral aid-for-trade complementary? The World Economy, 40(10), 2125–2152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tadesse, B., & White, R. (2011). Emigrant effects on bilateral trade: Reexamining the immigrant-trade link from the home country perspective. The Eastern Economic Journal, 37(2), 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tadesse, B., & White, R. (2015). Do immigrants reduce bilateral trade costs? An empirical test. Applied Economics Letters, 22(14), 1127–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tadesse, B., & White, R. (2017). Immigrants, cultural differences, and trade costs. International Migration, 55(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. White, R., & Tadesse, B. (2011). International migration and economic integration: Understanding the immigrant-trade link. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. World Bank. (2017). World development indicators. Accessed May 1, 2017.

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota – DuluthDuluthUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsWhittier CollegeWhittierUSA

Personalised recommendations