Advertisement

A Panel Data Analysis of Size Classification and the Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements

  • Snorri Thomas Snorrason
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

This chapter investigates the effects of PTAs on trade flows in the E45 using panel data analysis for the years 1990 to 2005. This is undertaken with respect to the differential impact on E45 countries according to the size classification introduced in Chap. 3.

The first section provides an overview of the Common Constant Method, Fixed and Random Effect approaches to panel data analysis. Section 6.6 undertakes a panel data analysis of the impact of the size of countries, using the classification developed in Chap. 3, to analyse the trade flow effects on E45 countries. Section 6.7 investigates the impact of PTAs on the trade flows of the same E45 countries. The final panel data estimation in Sect. 6.8 investigates the trade flow effects of the size of countries and PTAs simultaneously. Section 6.9 investigates the welfare effects of PTAs and trade costs according to the country size classification and membership of a trade bloc. The analysis estimates the standard trade creation and trade diversion effects as well as consideration of the implications for countries according to their size using the classification developed in Chap. 3. Section 6.10 presents a brief summary and conclusions.

Keywords

Size Classification Trade Cost Trade Flow Small Country Panel Data Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahn, S. C., & Moon, H. R. (2001). Large-N and large-T properties of panel data estimators and the Hausman test. USC CLEO Research Paper, No. C01-20.Google Scholar
  2. Asteriou, D., & Hall, S. G. (2007). Applied econometrics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. E., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (NBER working paper, Vol. 12516). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  4. Baltagi, B. H. (2001). Econometric analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bayoumi, T., & Eichengreen, B. (1995). Is regionalism simply a diversion? Evidence from the evolution of the EC and EFTA (NBER working paper, Vol. 5283). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, I-Hui, & Wall, H. J. (2005). Controlling for heterogeneity in gravity models of trade and integration. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 87(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
  7. Cheng, I-H. (1999). The political economy of economic integration. Ph.D. Thesis, Birkbeck College, University of London.Google Scholar
  8. Egger, P., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2003). The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: A three-way model with bilateral interaction effects. Empirical Economics, 28, 571–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egger, P. (2000). A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Economics Letters, 66, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egger, P. (2002). An econometric view on the estimation of gravity models and the calculation of trade potentials. The World Economy, 25(2), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankel, J., & Wei, S.-J. (1998). Regionalization of world trade and currencies: Economics and politics. In J. Frankel (Ed.), The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 189–210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frankel, J. A. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world economic system. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  13. Green, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, J., & DiNardo, J. (1996). Econometric methods (4th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Mátyás, L. (1997). Proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. The World Economy, 20, 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mátyás, L. (1998). The gravity model: Some econometric considerations. The World Economy, 21(3), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soloaga, I., & Winters, L. A. (2001). Regionalism in the nineties: What effect on trade? The North American Journal of Economics & Finance, 12, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wall, H. J. (1999). Using the gravity model to estimate the cost of protection. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 81(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
  20. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section & panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Introductory econometrics (3rd ed.). New York: Thomson-Southwestern.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Snorri Thomas Snorrason
    • 1
  1. 1.Management School Department of EconomicsLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations