, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 489–505 | Cite as

Costs of a missing FTA: the case of Turkey and Algeria

  • N. Nergiz Dincer
  • Ayça Tekin-KoruEmail author
  • Pinar Yaşar
Original Paper


Turkey has been deeply integrated with the EU, its largest trading partner, particularly following the Customs Union agreement in 1996. However, the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the EU with third party countries may create some unfair competitive pressures, market share and welfare losses for Turkey. This study investigates the impact of the FTA signed by Algeria and the EU in 2005 on Turkey’s trade flows. Covering 181 countries, a difference-in-differences analysis embedded in an extended gravity framework is employed to quantify the trade effects of the EU-Algeria FTA for the period of 1996–2013. Our findings suggest that bilateral trade between Turkey and Algeria is affected adversely due to the FTA. The counterfactual analysis shows that Turkish exports and imports to/from Algeria could have been 12 and 17% higher, respectively, had there been no FTA between the EU and Algeria.


FTA Turkey Customs union Gravity model 

JEL Classification

F14 F15 F41 


  1. Abedini J, Peridy N (2008) The Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA): an estimation of the trade effects. J Econ Integr 23(4):848–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams RK (1980) International trade flows under flexible exchange rates. Econ Rev 65(3):3–10Google Scholar
  3. Adam A, Moutos T (2008) The trade effects of the EU-Turkey customs union. World Econ 31(5):685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aitken ND (1973) The effect of the EEC and EFTA on European trade: a temporal cross-section analysis. Am Econ Rev 63(5):881–892Google Scholar
  5. Anderson JE (1979) A theoretical foundation of the gravity model. Am Econ Rev 69(1):106–116Google Scholar
  6. Anderson JE, Van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93(1):170–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonucci D, Manzocchi S (2006) Does Turkey have a special trade relation with the EU? A gravity model approach. Econ Syst 30(2):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2002). On the endogeneity of international trade flows and free trade agreements. Manuscript.
  9. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2004) Economic determinants of free trade agreements. J Int Econ 64(1):29–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J Int Econ 71(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2009) Bonus vetus OLS: a simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects using the gravity equation. J Int Econ 77(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergstrand JH (1985) The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Rev Econ Stat 67(3):474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergstrand JH (1989) The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. Rev Econ Stat 71:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brada JC, Méndez JA (1985) Economic integration among developed, developing and centrally planned economies: a comparative analysis. Rev Econ Stat 67:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carrere C (2006) Revisiting the effects of regional trade agreements on trade flows with proper specification of the gravity model. Eur Econ Rev 50(2):223–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deardorff A (1998) Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a classical world? In: Frankel J (ed) The regionalization of the world economy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Egger H, Egger P, Greenaway D (2008) The trade structure effects of endogenous regional trade agreements. J Int Econ 74(2):278–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evenett SW, Keller W (2002) On theories explaining the success of the gravity equation. J Polit Econ 110(2):281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankel JA, Stein E, Wei SJ (1995) Trading blocs and the americas: the natural, the unnatural, and the super-natural. J Dev Econ 47(1):61–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lejour AM, de Mooij RA (2005) Turkish delight: does Turkey’s accession to the EU bring economic benefits? Kyklos 58(1):87–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magee CS (2003) Endogenous preferential trade agreements: an empirical analysis. Contrib Econ Anal Policy 2(1)Google Scholar
  22. Magee CS (2008) New measures of trade creation and trade diversion. J Int Econ 75(2):349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neyaptı B, Taskın F, Üngör M (2007) Has European customs union agreement really affected Turkey’s trade? Appl Econ 39(16):2121–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nowak-Lehmann F, Herzer D, Martinez-Zarzoso I, Vollmer S (2007) The impact of a customs union between Turkey and the EU on Turkey’s exports to the EU. J Common Mark Stud 45(3):719–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Togan S (2000) Effects of a Turkey-European Union customs union and prospects for the future. Russ East Eur Financ Trade 36(4):5–25Google Scholar
  27. World Bank (2014) “Evaluation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union”, No. 85830-TR,
  28. Yalcin E, Aichele R, Felbermayr G (2016) Turkey’s EU integration at a crossroads, Global economic dynamics study. Bertelsmann Stiftung, GüterslohGoogle Scholar
  29. Zidi A, Dhifallah SM (2013) Trade creation and trade diversion between Tunisia and EU: analysis by gravity model. Int J Econ Financ 5(5):131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Nergiz Dincer
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ayça Tekin-Koru
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Pinar Yaşar
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTED UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.The World BankAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.TED University Trade Research CenterAnkaraTurkey
  5. 5.Economic Research ForumCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations