International Economics and Economic Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 239–261 | Cite as

The gravity of institutions in a resource-rich country: the case of Azerbaijan

Original Paper
  • 218 Downloads

Abstract

This research study analyzes the effects of similarities in economic size and institutional level on bilateral trade. It is interested in whether similarities in country size and at the institutional level encourage enlarging volumes of bilateral trade between countries. Using panel data of the bilateral trade of Azerbaijan with 50 different countries from 1995 to 2012, estimating by random and fixed effects, as well as the Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML), the study finds that similarity of income size is necessary for increasing bilateral trade across countries. The main finding is that high quality rule of law and more control of corruption boost confidence in international trade, therefore, reliable countries tend to trade more between each other, and less with unreliable countries. Unreliable countries trade more with each other, and less with reliable ones. A large divergence in institutional quality performance reduces bilateral trade across countries. The results show that a long-term contract is one of the main indicator for natural resource exports; therefore distance might not have significant impact on bilateral trade relationships.

Keywords

International trade Gravity model Natural resource Institutional quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Hezi Eynalov and all seminar participants at Qafqaz University in Baku and for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2001) The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1369–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2001) Borders, trade and welfare. NBER working papers 8515. National Bureau of Economic Research, IncGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev, Am Econ Assoc 93(1):170–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews M, Schank T, Upward R (2006) The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: A three-way model with bilateral interaction effects. Stata J 6(4):461–481Google Scholar
  5. Azhgaliyeva D (2013) What makes oil revenue funds effective. International conference on energy, regional integration and Socio-economic Development 6023, EcoModGoogle Scholar
  6. Bojnec S, Ferto I (2009) The institutional determinants of bilateral agricultural and food trade. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce:3Google Scholar
  7. Boschini AD, Pettersson J, Roine J (2007) Resource curse or not: a question of appropriability. Scand J Econ 109(3):593–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunnschweiler CN, Bulte EH (2008) The resource curse revisited and revised: a tale of paradoxes and red herrings. J Environ Econ Manag 55(3):248–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byers D, Iscan T, Lesser B (2000) New borders and trade flows: a gravity model analysis of the baltic states. Open Econ Rev 11(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen S-S, Hsu K-W (2012) Reverse globalization: Does high oil price volatility discourage international trade? Energy Econ 34(5):1634–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damijan J, Rojec M (2007) EU market access and export performance of transition countries. South East Eur J Econ Bus 2(2):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding N, Field BC (2005) Natural resource abundance and economic growths. Land Econ 81(4):496–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duc C, Lavallee E, Siroen J-M (2008) The Gravity of Institutions. Economie Internationale 113(1):95–113Google Scholar
  14. Duran-Fernandez R, Santos G (2014) Gravity, distance, and traffic flows in Mexico. Res Transp Econ 46(C):30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2003) Practical fixed-effects estimation methods for the three-way error-components model. Empir Econ 28(3):571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finger JM, Kreinin ME (1979) A measure of ’Export Similarity’ and its possible uses. Econ J Roy Econ Soc 89(356):905–912Google Scholar
  17. Fugazza M (2004) Export performance and its determinants: supply and demand constraints. Blue Series Papers 26, United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  18. Gylfason T (2001) Natural resources, education, and economic development. Eur Econ Rev 45(4–6):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helpman E (1987) Imperfect competition and international trade: evidence from fourteen industrial countries. J Japan Int Econ 1(1):62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson DJ, Millimet DL (2008) Is gravity linear? J Appl Econ 23 (2):137–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horvath R, Zeynalov A (2014) The natural resource curse in post-soviet countries: the role of institutions and trade policies. IOS Working Papers 341, Institute for East and Southeast European StudiesGoogle Scholar
  22. IMF-Report S (2014) Republic of Azerbaijan: 2014 Article IV Consultation-Staff Report; Press Release. Technical Report 14/159, International Monetary FundGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen N, Wantchekon L (2004) Resource wealth and political regimes in Africa. Comparative Political Studies 37(9):816–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2009) Governance matters VIII : aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996-2008. Policy Research Working Paper Series 4978, The World BankGoogle Scholar
  25. Kronenberg T (2004) The curse of natural resources in the transition economies. Econ Transit 12(3):399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Law SH, Lim TC, Ismail NW (2013) Institutions and economic development: a granger causality analysis of panel data evidence. Econ Syst 37(4):610–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leite C, Weidmann J (1999) Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growth. IMF Working Papers 99/85, International Monetary FundGoogle Scholar
  28. Lissovolik B, Lissovolik Y (2006) Russia and the WTO: the gravity of outsider status. IMF Staff Pap 53(1):1Google Scholar
  29. Lundstrom S (2005) Decomposed effects of democracy on economic freedom. Eur J Polit Econ 21:967–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mauro P (1995) Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press 110(3):681–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCallum J (1995) National borders matter: Canada-U.S. Regional trade patterns. Am Econ Rev Am Econ Assoc 85(3):615–23Google Scholar
  32. Mehlum H, Moene K, Torvik R (2006) Cursed by resources or institutions? World Economy 29(8):1117–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milner HV, Kubota K (2005) Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization, Cambridge University Press 59(01):107–143Google Scholar
  34. Mtys L (1998) The gravity model: some econometric considerations. World Economy 21(3):397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sachs JD, Warner AM (1995) Natural resource abundance and economic growth. NBER working papers 5398. National Bureau of Economic Research,IncGoogle Scholar
  36. Sachs JD, Warner AM (2001) The curse of natural resources. Eur Econ Rev 45(4–6):827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shepherd B, Wilson JS (2009) Trade facilitation in ASEAN member countries: measuring progress and assessing priorities. J Asian Econ 20(4):367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siliverstovs B, Schumacher D (2009) Estimating gravity equations: to log or not to log? Empir Econ 36(3):645–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silva S, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Svejnar J (2002) Transition economies: performance and challenges. J Econ Perspect Am Econ Assoc 16(1):3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the world economy. Suggestions for an international economic policy. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Vezina P-L, von Below D (2013) The trade consequences of pricey oil. Economics series working papers OxCarre research paper 11, University of Oxford, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  43. Westerlund J, Wilhelmsson F (2009) Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Appl Econ 43(6):641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Economic StudiesCharles University in PraguePrague 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations