the potential challenges of asean trade in afta
Post on 10-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
1/154
THE POTENTIAL CHALLENGE OF ASEANS T RADE
IN THE ASEAN FREE TRADE AREA
-A GRAVITY MODEL APPROACH-
____________________________
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School
of Economic Sciences of Hiroshima Shudo University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master in Economics
Student ID: 0874102
Written by: Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy
Supervised by: Prof. Toshihisa Toyoda
____________________________
Hiroshima Shudo University
2010
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
2/154
ii
ABSTRACT
Since the 1990s, the regional integration has been increasingly popular
through trade, investment and financial markets. Among others, ASEAN can
be considered as one of the most important regional trading blocs in the East
Asia. To achieve ASEANs targets of stimulating intra- and extra-regional
trade, improving the investment climate and enhancing the competitiveness
of industrial performance of its member countries, its members agreed in
1992 to formulate the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). AFTA is expected
to make manufacturing sectors in ASEAN more efficient and ready to
compete in the global market for trade in goods and investment.
The momentum toward regional trading blocs in the Southeast Asia like
ASEAN raises many issues that are important not only for the effect of the
regional trade agreement (RTA) on trade, but also for the economic tools
used to investigate it. Since ASEAN has intensively traded with non-
members countries also, it is unclear whether the formation of AFTA has
potentially promoted trade flows of its members. In order to investigate such
impact, the gravity model has been extensively applied. While trade is a
dynamic process at least in theory, there are very few literatures on ASEAN
trade which apply the dynamic gravity model.
The main objectives of this research are to evaluate the determinants of
bilateral exports in ASEAN applying the extended gravity model; and todevelop the static panel gravity model into the dynamic model. Panel data
framework is used to estimate and evaluate the empirical resu lts based on the
data of 43 countries from 1989 to 2005. The primary research question
addresses what factors enhance and impede ASEAN trade. In addition, it also
seeks to address whether the dynamic gravity model could provide a
comparable result to the static gravity model in analyzing trade flows.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
3/154
iii
The research is conducted in two scenarios: intra-ASEAN and extra-ASEAN.
The former consists of 10 ASEAN countries while the latter contains 43
countries. Both scenarios are investigated by applying static and dynamic
panel gravity models. The static model is specified based on the
conventional gravity model. The dynamic model is formulated based on two
economic hypotheses: the partial adjustments and adaptive expectations
hypotheses.
The static model is esti mated by the error-component two-stage least squares
(EC2SLS) whereas the dynamic model is estimated by the system of
generalized method of moment (system-GMM). Both the static and dynamic
models treat GDPs of both exporter and importer as endogenous variables. In
order to estimate the static model by the EC2SLS, populations of the
exporter and importer are used as instruments for their GDPs. Since
estimating the dynamic model by the system-GMM uses the second and
higher lags of the endogenous variable as instruments, no instruments
outside the system are required.
The results show that intra-ASEAN trade is determined by the market sizes
of the ASEAN members, transport costs, historical links, and RTA. Extra-
ASEAN trade is determined by the market sizes of ASEAN and its trading
partners, as well as transport costs, cultural and historical links,
geographical proximity and RTAs. Among several variables, the market sizesboth in ASEAN and in its main trading partners play an important role in
determining the bilateral trade flows in ASEAN. The findings also confirm
that AFTA has increased trade flows of its members.
Moreover, estimating the static gravity model using the EC2SLS and the
dynamic one using system-GMM yields plausible results. This supports the
claim that the gravity model can be used to investigate trade determinants.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
4/154
iv
However, the long-run coefficients obtained from the dynamic model are
generally higher than the coefficients obtained from the static model.
In addition, the empirical results show that formulating the dynamic gravity
models based on the partial adjustments and adaptive expectations
hypotheses provides similar results. Both models indicate that trade is
indeed a dynamic process. This suggests that lagged trade flows should be
included as one of the explanatory variables of the gravity model when one
estimates the gravity model.
This thesis is consisted of fi ve chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introduction,
the motivation, and the objectives of the research. Chapter 2 describes the
patterns of ASEAN trade from 1989-2005 by means of the share matrix of
world trade and the trade intensity matrix. The chapter also reviews some
key literature on the theoretical foundations and the applications of the
gravity models.
Chapter 3 aims at discussing the conceptual framework of the gravity model
specifications. These include the specifications of both static and dynamic
gravity models. The chapter then explains the estimation methods for both
the static and dynamic gravity models. The methods employed are EC2SLS
for the static gravity model, and the system-GMM for the dynamic gravity
model. Moreover, the chapter explains the data collection, and some relatedtechnical issues needed to adjust the data. Finally, Chapter 3 summarizes the
conceptual framework for evaluating ASEAN trade.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the research and discusses the research
findings. The results are divided into two main groups, intra- and extra-
ASEAN trade. The former represents the analysis of trade flows of 10
ASEAN countries. The latter considers trade flows of 10 ASEAN countries
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
5/154
v
associated with their main trading partners. Both groups are estimated in
terms of both static and dynamic gravity models.
Chapter 5 summarizes the research results and provides the conclusions
regarding the research questions.
Key words: ASEAN, dynamic, Gravity Model, regional integration, trade
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
6/154
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several people have made intellectual and personal assistance to this study;
without their support this accomplishment would not have been achievable.
The best I can do is to give a special appreciation to all of my supporters
here.
Firstly, I would like to express my highest appreciation to my supervisor,
Professor Toshihisa Toyoda, for the incalculable contributions he has made
to this study. He has provided me with invaluable knowledge and ideas. His
friendly advice, constant encouragement, criticism and the confidence shown
to me during this study are sincerely appreciated.
Secondly, I highly appreciate Professor Chris Czerkawski and Professor
Tadashi Inoue for their constructive comments and suggestions on this
thesis.
In addition, I would like to express my special acknowledgement to the
graduate school of economic sciences that greatly facilitates the success of
this thesis.
Furthermore, I wish to thank Associate Professor Khamleusa Nuansavanh,
Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Business Management, the National
University of Laos, in permitting my study leave to complete this studymission. I am indebted the Japanese Government, Monbukagakusho (MEXT),
for her financial support and contribution.
I would also wish to express my special acknowledgement to Associate
Professor Phouphet Kyophilavong for invaluable suggestions on selecting my
research topic at the initial stage.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
7/154
vii
Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge the constant support of my
family for their faith, understanding and encouragement during my studies.
Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
8/154
i
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS .............................................................................................. i
LIST OF TABLES .............. ................. ................ ................. ................ ... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............... ................. ................ ................ ................. vi
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................... ................ ................ ....... 1
1.1 Research Background ......................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation of the Research ................................................................ 4
1.3. Purpos e of the Resear ch ............... ................ ................. ................ .... 5
1.4 Thesis Organization ........................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....... ................ ................. ............ 7
2.1 Key Concepts on the Regional Economic Integration ........................... 7
2.1.1 Types of Regional Economic Integration (REI) .............................. 7
2.1.2 Regional Economic Integration a nd its Effects ............................... 8
2.2 An Overview on ASEAN and AFTA ................................................... 9
2.2.1 An Overview on ASEAN ............................................................... 9
2.2.2 An Overview on AFTA ............................................................... 10
2.3 Trade Flows in Intra- and Extra-ASEAN ........................................... 12
2.3.1 Trade Share Matrix ..................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Trade Intensity among ASEAN Countries .................................... 16
2.4 International Trade Theory ............................................................... 20
2.4.1 Physical Characteristics of Countries ........................................... 20
2.4.2 Population .................................................................................. 21
2.4.3 Capital ....................................................................................... 21
2.4.4 Distance ..................................................................................... 22
2.4.5 The Political Factor .................................................................... 22
2.4.6 Stage of Economic Development. ................................................ 23
2.5 International Trade and Gravity Model ............................................. 23
2.5.1 Literature on the Theoretical Foundation of the Gravity Model ..... 23
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
9/154
ii
2.5.2 Theoretical Foundations of the Gravity Equation .......................... 32
2.5.3 Literature on the Econometric Method of the Gravity Model ......... 38
2.5.4 Literature on the International Trade Analyses Applying the
Gravit y Model ............... ................ ................. ................ ................ ..... 41
2.5.5 Previously Related Studies on Trade Flows of ASEAN ................. 47
2.6 Summary ......................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 3: EMPIRICAL MO DELS AND METHODOLOGY .. ........... 55
3.1 Summary of Variables Used in the Gravity Model ............................. 55
3.2 Specifications of Static Panel Gravity Models ................................... 58
3.2.1 Cross-section Gravity Model versus Panel Gravity Model ............. 583.2.2 Specification of Static Gravity Model for Intra-ASEAN Trade ...... 61
3.2.3 Model Specification for Extra-ASEAN Trade: Static Gravity
Equation .................................................................................... 65
3.3 Specifications of Dynamic P anel Gravity Models .............................. 67
3.3.1 Dynamic Panel Gravity Model: P artial Adjustments Hypothesis .... 68
3.3.2 Dynamic Panel Gravity Model: Adaptive Expectations
Hypothesis .......................................................................................... 72
3.4 Estimation Methods ......................................................................... 79
3.4.1 Estimation Method for Static Panel Gravity Model ....................... 79
3.4.2 Estimation Method for Dynamic Panel Gravity Model .................. 80
3.5 Data Used in the Research ............................................................... 84
3.5.1 Data Sources .............................................................................. 84
3.5.3 Summary Statistics of Data ......................................................... 853.6 Summary ......................................................................................... 87
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............... ..... 89
4.1 Static Panel Gravity Model of Intra-ASEAN Trade ............................ 90
4.2 Static Panel Gravity Model of Extra-ASEAN Trade ........................... 94
4.2.1 Static Gravity Model of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline
Context ..................................................................................... 94
4.2.2 Static Gravity M odel of Extr a-ASEAN Trade in the FTA context .. 98
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
10/154
iii
4.3 Intra-ASEAN Trade versus Extra -ASEAN Trade ............................. 102
4.4 Dynamic Panel Gravity Model of Intra-ASEAN Trade ..................... 105
4.5 Dynamic Panel Gravity Model of Extra-ASEAN Trade .................... 109
4.5.1 Dynamic Gravity Model of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline
Context ................................................................................... 109
4.5.2 Dynamic Gravity Model of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA
Context ................................................................................... 114
4.6 Summary ....................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIO NS .......... 122
5.1 Summary and Empirical Results ..................................................... 1225.2 Policy Implications of the Research Findings .................................. 126
5.3 Limitations of the Study ................................................................ 127
5.4 Contribution to the Related Studies ................................................ 128
5.5 Suggestions for Future Research .................................................... 130
APPENDIX .......................................................................................... 132
Appendix A......................................................................................... 132
Appendix B ......................................................................................... 133
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 135
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
11/154
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Average CEPT Tariff Rates, by Country, 1998-2003 .................. 11Table 2.2 Percentage Share Matrix of World T rade for 1989-2005
Average ................................................................................... 14
Table 2.3 Intensity of Trade for 1989-2005 Average ................................. 18
Table 2.4 Summary of the Key Tr ade Literature Applying the Gravity
Model ...................................................................................... 45
Table 2.5 Summary of Key ASEAN T rade Literature Applying the
Gravity Model ......................................................................... 51
Table 3.1 Variables Used in the Gravity Model ......................................... 56
Table 3.2 Estimated Short-run Elasticity and Long-run Elasticity Based
on Partial Adjustments Hypothesis ............................................ 71
Table 3.3 Estimated Short-run Elasticity and Long-run Elasticity Based
on Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis ....................................... 77
Table 3.4 Variable Descriptions and Predicted Signs ................................. 78
Table 3.5.a Summary Statistics of the Most Important Variables of
Intra-ASEAN Trade, 1989-2005 ................................................ 86
Table 3.5.b Summary Statistics of the Most Important Variables of
Extra-ASEAN Trade, 1989-2005 ............................................... 87
Table 4.1 Determinants of Intra-ASEAN Trade: Static Model .................... 93
Table 4.2 Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline
Context: Static Model .............................................................. 97
Table 4.3 Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA Context: Static
Model ...................................................................................... 99
Table 4.4.a Determinants of Intra-ASEAN T rade: Dynamic Model ........... 106
Table 4.4.b Long-run Determinants of Intra-ASEAN Trade ..................... 107
Table 4.5.a Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline Context:
Dynamic Model Based on Partial Adjustments Hypothesis ....... 110
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
12/154
v
Table 4.5.b Long-run Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the
Baseline Context: Partial Adjustments Hypothesis ................... 111
Table 4.6.a Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline Context:
Dynamic Model Based on Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis ... 112
Table 4.6.b Long-run Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the Baseline
Context: Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis ............................ 113
Table 4.7.a Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA Context:
Dynamic Model Based on Partial Adjustments Hypothesis ....... 116
Table 4.7.b Long-run Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA
Context: Partial Adjustments Hypothesis ................................. 117 Table 4.8.a Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA Context:
Dynamic Model Based on Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis ... 119
Table 4.8.b Long-run Determinants of Extra-ASEAN Trade in the FTA
Context: Adaptive Expectations H ypothesis ............................ 120
Table 5.1 Variables Affecting the Determinants of Intra- and Extra-
ASEAN Trade ........................................................................ 125
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
13/154
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 Organization of Thesis .............................................................. 6
Figure 2.1 Share of Intra-ASEAN Exports ................................................ 15
Figure 2.2 Intra- and Extra-ASEAN Exports ............................................. 16
Figure 2.3 Trade Intensity of Intra-ASEAN .............................................. 19
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework for Evaluating ASEAN Trade Flows ..... 88
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
14/154
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
AEE = Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis of Extra-ASEAN Trade
AEI = Adaptive Expectations Hypothesis of Intra-ASEAN Trade
AFTA = ASEAN Free Trade Area
APEC = Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
ARDL = Autoregressive Distributed Lag
ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CAFTA = China-AFTA
CEPT = Common Effective Preferential Tariff
CES = Constant Elasticity of Substitution
CGE = Computable General Equilibrium
CMEA = Council of Mutual Economic Assistance
EAFTA = East Asia Free Trade Area
EC2SLS = Error Component Two-stage Least Squares
EEC = European Economic Community
EFTA = European Free Trade Association
EMU = Economic and Currency Union
ESI = Export Similarity Indices
FDI = Foreign Direct Investment
FEM = Fixed Effects Model
FTA = Free Trade Area
GATT = General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP = Gross Domestic Product
GEL = General Exception List
GMM = Generalized Method of Moments
GSP = Generalized System of Preferences
ICI = International Competitive Indices
IL = Inclusion List
LAFTA = Latin American Free Trade Association
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
15/154
viii
MERCOSUR = Southern Common Market
NAFTA = North American Free Trade Area
OECD = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OLS = Ordinary Least Squares
PAE = Partial Adjustments Hypothesis of Extra-ASEAN Trade
PAI = Partial Adjustments Hypothesis of Intra-ASEAN Trade
REI = Regional Economic Integration
REM = Random Effects Model
RTA = Regional Trade Agreement
SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SITC = Standard International Trade Classification
TEL = Temporary Exclusion List
WH = Western Hemisphere
WTO = World Trade Organization
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
16/154
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Since the 1990s, the regional integration has been increasingly popular
through trade, investment and financial markets. These include the foundations
of ASEAN free trade area (AFTA, 1992), European Union (1993), North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, 1994), South Asian Free Trade
Area (SAFTA, 2004) and so on. The rise of regional trading blocs brings about
challenges for economists in international trade. One fundamental question
posed by this is the aggregate welfare effects of regional trade liberalization.
Another question giving rise to this research is how important RTAs actually
have been for the pattern of trade. It is therefore crucial to evaluate
econometrically the trade effect of the RTAs.
Among others, ASEAN can be considered as one of the most important regional
trading blocs in East Asia. To achieve ASEANs targets of stimulating intra - and
extra-regional trade, improving the investment climate and enhancing the
competitiveness of industrial performance of its member countries, its members
agreed in 1992 to formulate the AFTA. In 2005, the bloc spanned over an area of
4.46 million km2 with a combined GDP (nominal) of about USD 896.5 billion
growing at an average rate of around 5.6% per annum. AFTA is expected to
make manufacturing sectors in ASEAN more efficient and ready to compete in
the global market for trade in goods and investment. Obviously, the
establishments of ASEAN will serve as the building blocks for a possible
establishment of an East Asia Free Trade Area (EAFTA) in the near future.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
17/154
2
Analyzing regional trade in AFTA represents a useful laboratory not only to
apply economic tools for international trade analysis, but also to map out
policy of ASEAN trade when the trading bloc has become to be more
integrated with differentiated countries in sizes, and levels of economic and
institutional development. Regarding the international trade analysis, some
reliable international models are going to be chosen and tested based on
ASEAN and related data set. After deriving an appropriate model of ASEAN
trade, policy analysis can be done. From the policy point of view, recognizing
possible factors affecting trade flows plays a crucial role in designing
international trade policy. Furthermore, policy makers may wish to draw an
exact conclusion whether AFTA has increased trade flows for its members. To
sum up, the factors determining trade flows and the impact of AFTA on its
members are essential to be analyzed precisely.
While regional economic integration (REI) covers a wide range of issues, this
thesis focuses on trade. Forecasting or measuring the impact of economic
integration by means of its effect on trade is a very challenging task. The
classical method of welfare analysis is to apply the Computable General
Equilibrium (CGE) model. However, formulating this model requires not only
much time and efforts, but also the results of which are not always easily
interpretable. Moreover, method of regression analysis which yields simply
interpretable results cannot be used to estimate the welfare effects directly. In
short, it seems to be a methodological trade-off between simple estimationmethod and easily interpretable results regarding the sensitive questions posed
by welfare effects of REI.
Fortunately, there has been a simple but powerful model of international trade
called a gravity model. It has been regarded as the workhorse to explain the
impact of regional integration in terms of trade. The model relates bilateral
trade flows positively to their GDPs, and inversely to the transaction costs
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
18/154
3
(approximated by distance between exporting and importing countries). After
having been originally proposed by Tinbergen (1962), while the gravity model
has been widely used to analyze international trade flows, it has been criticized
for lacking of any theoretical foundations. This criticism has gradually
diminished after the publication of the work by Anderson (1979) on the
theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. Furthermore, there are other
key literature that have been published, e.g. Bergstrand (1985, 1989, 1990),
Deardorff (1998), and Anderson and van Wincoop (2003).
The gravity model has gained its popularity because of three fundamental
reasons. First, international trade flows play a crucial role in all aspects of
economic relationships, it is therefore essential to understand what normal
trade flows should be. Second, data set used for estimating the gravity model is
available to all researchers. Third, several famous papers have established the
gravity models regarded by economists as being proper, correct, and good (e.g.
Anderson, 1979; McCallum, 1995; Frankel, 1998; Rose, 2000; Anderson and
van Wincoop, 2003).
The gravity models empirical success has expanded its empirical applications
to cover a variety of issues, such as the impact of RTA, national borders, and
currency unions on trade. This requires accumulating many countries over long
time period to enable the analysis of interest. As a consequence, one of the
new waves of the academic profession in the development of the gravity modelis concentrating on finer econometrics approach. And this thesis is mainly
devoted to do just that.
Up to this point, three issues have been highlighted: (1) the importance of
evaluating factors enhancing and impeding international trade flows; (2) the
impact of regional economic integration, especially AFTA, on trade flows of
its members; and (3) the way forward to develop the gravity model by
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
19/154
4
attributing its characteristics with econometric techniques. This thesis is going
to integrate all three key issues together and use them to draw conclusions
regarding ASEAN trade.
1.2 Motivation of the Research
This research has been concentrated on investigating the determinants of
ASEAN trade applying the gravity model. Previous research addressed factors
determining ASEAN trade and the effects of AFTA on trade flows of ASEAN
countries (see Roberts, 2004; Elliott and Ikemoto, 2004; Kien and Hashimoto,
2005; Hapsari and Mangunsung, 2006; Siah et al., 2009). However, these
studies focused only on the application of static gravity model. To the authors
knowledge, no research has analyzed ASEAN trade utilizing the dynamic panel
gravity model.
The dynamic panel gravity model is worth to be brought into consideration due
to three fundamental reasons. Firstly, the empirical results of Eichengreen and
Irwin (1998) indicated that trade patterns tend to change relatively slowly over
time even the change in RTAs or political links is sudden. Toward this
situation, they suggested to include lagged trade variables in the gravity
equation. The importance of the dynamic gravity model is also emphasized by
Bun and Klaassen (2002). They applied the system-GMM and fixed-effects
model to estimate the dynamic panel gravity model. They confirmed that
ignoring the lagged trade variable can lead to incorrect model specifications.
Furthermore, the tools that have been employed to estimate the gravity
equation in panel data framework have evolved over time, as the results of
both developments in panel econometrics and changes in the specific questions
posed by the theoretical models. This increases the availability of econometric
tools for estimating the gravity model in the panel data framework. Finally, the
author is very interested in the art of econometric modeling.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
20/154
5
In conclusion, this thesis is highly motivated by the valuably empirical
research, the beauty of international trade theory represented by the gravity
model, and the art of econometric modeling. The author believes that the
research results can at least pave the way for a new direction in developing the
panel gravity model of international trade.
1.3. Purpose of the Research
The general objective of this research is to evaluate the determinants of
bilateral exports in ASEAN. This research seeks to address the following
primary research questions: what are the factors enhancing and impeding
ASEAN trade? And has the formation of AFTA really increased trade flows of
its members? The specific objectives of this research include:
(1)To provide an overview on the specifications of the panel gravity models oftrade;
(2)To extend the static panel gravity model into the dynamic model;(3)To draw policy implications regarding the promotion of ASEAN trade.1.4 Thesis Organization
This thesis is consisted of five chapters. Chapter 1 presents the
introduction, the motivation, and the objectives of the research. Chapter 2
describes the patterns of ASEAN trade from 1989-2005 by means of the share
matrix of world trade and the trade intensity matrix. The chapter also reviews
some key literature on the theoretical foundations and the applications of the
gravity models.
Chapter 3 aims at discussing the conceptual framework of the gravity model
specifications. These include the specifications of both static and dynamic
gravity models. The chapter then explains the estimation methods for both the
static and dynamic gravity models. The methods employed are EC2SLS for the
static gravity model, and the system-GMM for the dynamic gravity model.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
21/154
6
Moreover, the chapter explains the data collection, and some related technical
issues needed to adjust the data. Finally, Chapter 3 summarizes the conceptual
framework for evaluating ASEAN trade.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the research and discusses the research
findings. The results are divided into two main groups, intra- and extra-ASEAN
trade. The former represents the analysis of trade flows of 10 ASEAN countries.
The latter considers trade flows of 10 ASEAN countries associated with their
main trading partners. Both groups are estimated in terms of both static and
dynamic gravity models.
Chapter 5 summarizes the research results and provides the conclusions
regarding the research questions. The organization structure of this thesis is
illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Organization of Thesis
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Chapter 3
Empirical Models
and Methodology
Chapter 4
Gravity Model Results
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusions
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
22/154
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is aimed to form the basic idea on how to investigate international
trade flows analytically in chapter 4. It reviews the relevant literature to
explain ASEAN trade flows. Section 2.1 provides some key concepts of
economic integration. Section 2.2 presents historical overview of ASEAN and
AFTA. Section 2.3 descriptively analyzes the overall patterns of intra- and
extra-ASEAN trade. Section 2.4 describes factors possibly affecting
international trade flows. Section 2.5 is devoted to the literature of the gravity
model. Section 2.6 summarizes the chapter.
2.1 Key Concepts on the Regional Economic Integration
2.1.1 Types of Regional Economic Integration (REI)
It is interesting to ask what it means by Regional Economic Integratio n
(REI). According to Marrewijk (2002), REI is typically defined as the
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers within a group of countries. There
are five main types of REI.
(i) Preferential trade agreement (PTA). The PTA occurs when the members of
the agreement reduce tariffs or other trade restrictions on some goods or
services within a group of countries. This is sometimes done unilaterally.
However, the treatment of trade restrictions is remained the same to non-
members of the agreement.
(ii) Free trade area (FTA). The FTA agreement occurs when the members of an
FTA eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers restricting trade among members,
without any common trade policy relative to other countries.
(iii) Customs union. The customs union occurs when the members of a group
not only abolish internal tariff and non-tariff barriers, but also develops a
common trade policy (i.e. common external tariffs) relative to other countries.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
23/154
8
(iv) Common market. The common market occurs when the members of a
group allow not only for the free movement of goods and services, but also for
the free movement of factors of production (i.e. capital and l abor).
(v) Economic union. The economic union is resulted from an extension of the
common/internal market, in which the institutional framework is harmonized
relating to competition policy, procurement, etc., and a fair degree of policy
coordination.
2.1.2 Regional Economic Integration and its Effects
REI has two main effects, such as trade creation and trade diversion,
originally described by Viner (1950). Trade creation refers to the emergence of
new trade flows among member countries of a trading bloc replacing domestic
production; and trade diversion refers to the substitution of imported goods
from non-member countries (low-cost products) with member countries (more
costly products).
The notions of trade creation and trade diversion involve not only in the partial
equilibrium market, but also in the general equilibrium and dynamic effects.
General equilibrium effects are consisted of terms of trade, wage rate, and
other factor return changes. Dynamic effects are composed of economies of
scale, growth, and innovation. Growth effect occurs when the REI induces
changes in trade balances in the partner countries on their macroeconomic
equilibriums. If all countries were to improve their trade balances through the
combined effects of trade creation and trade diversion, then this would be amacroeconomic shock on their output growth. One aspect of any change in
output growth would in turn have an impact on import demand from both
partner and non-partner countries. Another aspect of output growth is that it
leads to dynamic gains through higher investment and innovation.
According to Hassan (2001), the REI in the form of a customs union has the
following effects:
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
24/154
9
(i) Static effects:
a) Trade creation effects, resulted from both production and consumption
gains;
b) Trade diversion effects, caused by replacing cheaper imports with
members of the same trading agreement due to the elimination of tariff
and non-tariff barriers within the group;
c) Increase in international bargaining power due to the larger economic
size;
d) Decrease in administrative expenditures among member countries; and
e) Less smuggling among member countries.
(ii) Dynamic effects:
a) Increase in production efficiency due to higher competition;
b) Decrease in average production costs due to economies of scale in
larger markets;
c) Higher international investment, resulted from an increase in
investment opportunities and lower uncertainty and risks; and
d) Promotion of technological change resulted from higher competition.
2.2 An Overview on ASEAN and AFTA
2.2.1 An Overview on ASEAN
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was founded on 8
August 1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Nations, respectively,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei
Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and
Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999. Consequently,
there are currently 10 member countries in ASEAN.
The formation of ASEAN is intended to strengthen and sustain key regional
issues. The first issue is to accelerate economic growth, social progress and
cultural development in the region. Another is to promote regional peace and
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
25/154
10
stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the
relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of
the United Nations Charter.
To sustain its rapid economic growth and development into the decade of the
1990s, ASEAN has had to respond to the external challenges of maintaining
strong economic relations with its major trading partners, thereby ensuring its
market access to the United States, Japan, and Europe. ASEAN, as a whole and
for its constituent member countries, also has had to sustain international
competitiveness in terms of attracting the flows of foreign direct investment
(FDI), to reduce production costs, and to maintain other advantages. As a result,
AFTA was established in 1992. The AFTA is such a collective strategic response
to pursue ASEANs goals of stimulating intra - and extra-regional trade,
improving the investment climate and enhancing the competitiveness of
industrial performance of its member countries.
2.2.2 An Overview on AFTA
AFTA is a trade bloc agreement by ASEAN supporting local manufacturing
in all ASEAN countries. The AFTA agreement was signed on 28 January 1992 in
Singapore. When the AFTA agreement was originally signed, ASEAN had six
members, namely, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand. Vietnam joined in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia in
1999. AFTA now comprises the ten member states of ASEAN. All the four
latecomers were required to sign the AFTA agreement in order to join ASEAN,
but were given longer time frames in which to meet AFTAs tariff reduction
obligations.
The primary goals of AFTA are to increase ASEANs competitive edge as a
production base in the world market through the elimination of tariffs and non-
tariff barriers within ASEAN; and to attract more FDI into ASEAN. The
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
26/154
11
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers among member countries is expected
to promote greater economic efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness.
The primary mechanism for achieving the goals given above is the Common
Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme, which established a schedule for
phased initiated in 1992 to increase the regions competitive advantage as a
production base geared for the world market.
Under the CEPT Scheme, all import duties will be eliminated by 2010 for the six
original members of ASEAN and by 2015 for the new members. The scheme hasbeen implemented on the basis of four product lists: the Inclusion List (IL), the
Temporary Exclusion List (TEL), the Sensitive List (SL), and the General
Exception List (GEL). Table 2.1 illustrates that the average regional CEPT rate
for products in the Inclusion List in 1998 has fallen to 5.05% from 12.76% in
1993. As of 1998, no product in the Inclusion List of the first six ASEAN
countries can have CEPT tariff rates higher than 20%. The average CEPT rate
for the region was scheduled to fall to 3.74% by the year 2000 and then to 2.63%
by the year 2003.
Table 2.1 Average CEPT Tariff Rates, by Country, 1998-2003Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Brunei Darussalam 1.35 1.30 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.87
Indonesia 6.12 5.29 4.57 4.36 4.10 3.69
Laos 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Malaysia 3.40 3.00 2.57 2.40 2.27 1.97
Myanmar 4.47 4.45 4.38 3.32 3.31 3.19Philippines 7.43 6.54 5.27 4.79 4.53 3.62
Singapore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thailand 10.56 9.75 7.40 7.36 6.02 4.64
Vietnam 3.92 3.90 3.38 2.97 2.72 1.78
ASEAN 5.05 4.59 3.74 3.54 3.17 2.63
Source: ASEANSecretariat
As a result of the successful implementation of the CEPT scheme, trade among
ASEAN countries had grown from USD 44.2 billion in 1993 to USD 352.7
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
27/154
12
billion in 2006, illustrating an average annual increase of 17.96%. Before the
Asian financial crisis struck in mid-1997, intra-ASEAN exports had been
increasing by 29.6%. This is considerably higher than the rate of increase of
total ASEAN exports, which grew at 18.8% during the same period (ASEAN
Secretariat, 2002).
2.3 Trade Flows in Intra- and Extra-ASEAN
Explaining trade flows within a region or among regions during a given time
period could provide a basic understanding on to what extent trading interaction
among them take place and in which direction they are going to be. While thereare many ways to describe bilateral trade flows, this section has employed two
basic tools of international trade. These are trade share matrix and trade
intensity. The former is attempted to provide a rough measure about how trade
interaction between two regions has been, whereas the latter can be used to
interpret more precisely how much bilateral trade between two regions has been
intensified.
2.3.1 Trade Share Matrix
Table 2.2 summarizes the world trade, averaged over 1989-2005, in the form of
trade share matrix. It illustrates the percentage share of a countrys or regions
exports to another country or region relative to its total exports. Table 2.2
consists of six trading blocs where some blocs are constructed by the author
for the purpose of more detailed analysis in the following chapters. These
blocs are ASEAN, EU13, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, OTHERS, and ROW. ASEA N
is composed of 10 countries, such as Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Since
the primary purpose of this thesis is to investigate the determinants of intra-
and extra-ASEAN, only 13 countries of the EU which are the main trading
partners of ASEAN have been included. These 13 EU countries are Austria,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
28/154
13
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. NAFTA is consisted of
Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America. MERCOSUR is composed
of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. OTHERS refers to countries
that do not belong to any RTA. It is consisted of Australia, Bangladesh, Chile,
China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan,
Switzerland, and Turkey. The term ROW stands for Rest of the World. ROW
is included only for the sake of completeness of describing world trade in this
section. This means, it will be excluded in the empirical analysis of chapter 4.
To describe the world trade using trade share matrix, it is crucial to highlight a
fundamental characteristic involved in this table. As shown in Table 2.2, the
row shows the percentage share of exports to each of the countries in the
column, relative to the total exports of a country in the row. Although there
are six blocs in Table 2.2, the following interpretation will mainly focus on
trade relations of intra- and extra-ASEAN. Intra-ASEAN trade accounted for
23.1% of their total exports, or amounted to USD 77,361 million (not reported
in Table 2.2). This was approximately twice less than the corresponding ratio
in EU13 and NAFTA (55% and 51%, respectively), but it was larger than trade
of intra-MERCOSUR by almost 30%. Exports from the 10 ASEAN countries to
the world were 6% of the world exports in 1989 -2005 averages, or amounted to
USD 334,342 million (not reported in Table 2.2). Obviously, among regional
blocs, ASEAN had traded more with OTHERS accounting for nearly 34% of
her total exports, and it could increase trade flows further if the East Asia FreeTrade Area would be established.
Regarding the intra-ASEAN trade in Table 2.2, the important point to be noted
is that compared to the other ASEAN countries, 57% and 33% of total exports
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
29/154
14
Table 2.2 Percentage Share Matrix of World Trade for 1989-2005 Average
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam ASEAN EU13 NAFTA MERCOSUR OTHERS ROW WORLD
a Brunei 0.00 3.04 0.00 1.40 0.00 1.02 6.64 9.34 0.01 21.44 1.62 6.03 0.00 69.24 1.66 100.00
b Cambodia 0.00 0.13 0.11 1.48 0.00 0.10 4.85 6.08 5.26 18.01 19.33 48.61 0.01 8.06 5.97 100.00
c Indonesia 0.05 0.11 0.00 2.82 0.12 1.30 9.41 1.81 0.64 16.27 12.49 14.31 0.48 45.04 11.41 100.00
d Laos 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.41 29.91 26.19 56.80 26.27 3.37 0.07 10.67 2.82 100.00
e Malaysia 0.31 0.06 1.26 0.00 0.23 1.32 18.08 3.94 0.54 25.75 12.72 21.07 0.39 30.62 9.45 100.00
f Myanmar 0.02 0.00 1.41 0.00 3.15 0.27 6.59 21.41 0.31 33.15 11.41 9.91 0.07 30.27 15.20 100.00
g Philippines 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.01 3.96 0.01 6.30 2.88 0.56 14.20 17.23 29.68 0.13 30.07 8.70 100.00
hSingapore 0.64 0.27 2.83 0.02 16.33 0.41 2.06 4.86 1.43 28.85 13.27 17.72 0.39 30.85 8.93 100.00i Thailand 0.08 0.60 1.80 0.59 4.00 0.35 1.39 9.01 1.16 18.98 14.38 20.65 0.40 31.45 14.15 100.00
j Vietnam 0.00 0.90 2.08 0.43 1.96 0.04 2.12 7.47 2.12 17.12 16.63 12.88 0.15 37.62 15.60 100.00
k ASEAN 0.31 0.25 1.68 0.12 6.93 0.27 1.49 7.82 3.29 0.96 23.14 13.51 19.10 0.37 33.45 10.44 100.00
l EU13 0.03 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.36 0.01 0.16 0.62 0.33 0.06 1.82 54.96 9.61 0.88 11.48 21.26 100.00
m NAFTA 0.02 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.62 1.62 0.60 0.05 4.13 14.47 51.31 1.85 16.40 11.84 100.00
n MERCOSUR 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.31 0.44 0.66 0.07 2.52 22.25 21.36 16.28 16.46 21.13 100.00
o OTHERS 0.02 0.03 1.24 0.01 1.64 0.07 1.07 2.82 1.77 0.43 9.11 20.79 22.93 0.84 31.25 15.09 100.00
p ROW 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.47 0.01 0.45 1.42 0.85 0.22 3.78 38.05 14.21 0.90 19.07 24.00 100.00
q WORLD 0.04 0.03 0.59 0.01 1.16 0.04 0.58 1.86 0.97 0.22 5.49 34.43 21.21 1.23 19.52 18.11 100.00
Exports to
Exports from
Source: Authors calculation using data from IMFs Direction of Trade (CD-ROM, 2006).
ASEAN: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
EU13: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
NAFTA: Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America.
MERCOSUR: Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, and Uruguay.
OTHERS: Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Turkey.
ROW (Rest of the World): other coun tries in addition to ASEAN, EU13, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, and OTHERS.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
30/154
15
of Laos and Myanmar, namely, had been sent to the ASEAN market. On the
other hand, only a small fraction of the total exports of Cambodia, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam were sold in ASEAN market. This data
has been shown graphically by Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Share of Intra-ASEAN Exports
0
10
20
30
40
50
60%
Brunei
Cambodia
Indon
esia
L
aos
Mala
ysia
Myan
mar
Philipp
ines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Share of Intra- ASEAN Exports
Source: drawn from Table 2.2
Now, it is noteworthy to consider the trading interaction between ASEAN and
other trading blocs. As obviously seen from Table 2.2, while 23% of the
ASEAN exports were sold in the ASEAN market herself, 34% went to the
OTHERS. Other important export markets of ASEAN were EU13 and
NAFTA, which accounted for 19% and 14% of ASEANs total exports,
namely. Among other trading blocs, MERCOSUR was the smallest market for
ASEAN exports which could absorb only less than 1% of the total ASEAN
exports. Figure 2.2 depicts the percentage share of ASEAN exports to ASEAN
herself and to other trading blocs.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
31/154
16
Figure 2.2 Intra- and Extra-ASEAN Exports
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
ASEAN EU13 NAFTA MERCOSUR OTHERS ROW
Exports of ASEAN
Source: drawn from Table 2.2
Turning to the exports of other trading blocs to ASEAN, about 9% of the total
exports of the OTHERS went t o ASEAN. EU13 exported only 1.8% of her
total exports to ASEAN which was the smallest percentage compared to
others.
2.3.2 Trade Intensity among ASEAN Countries
The intensity and character of trade among ASEAN countries and their
trade with other regional blocs may be examined more closely using the
concept of intensities of trade proposed by Brown (1947) . The extent to
which Laos, for example, trades more or less with particular countries may be
measured by intensity of trade indices. The intensity of Laoss trade withanother country is measured by the ratio of that countrys share in Lao exports
to its total share in world imports. Mathematically, the formula for calculating
trade intensity can be expressed as
100
l
i
l
li
li
MW
M
X
X
TI (2.1)
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
32/154
17
where
liTI is the index of trade intensity of Laos ( l) and country i
liX is the Lao exports to country i
lX is the total Lao exports )( i
liX
iM is the total imports by country i
lM is the total import by Laos
Wis the total world imports
If the intensity of Laoss exports is 100 with all countries, then Laoss exports
will be distributed by country exactly in proportion to each countrys share in
total world trade. World trade may be taken as representative of the structure
of world demand in tradable commodities. In fact, however, trade will never
be distributed in precisely this way. An exports intensity of more (less) than
100 indicates that Laos is exporting more (or less) to a particular country than
might be expected from that countrys share in total world imports. Laos can
therefore be said to have developed her export markets more (or less)
intensively in that country than in some other country. Likewise, the intensity
of other countrys export to Laos indicates the extent to which Laos takes
more imports from a particular country than might be expected from that
countrys share in world trade. The greater the intensity of both Laoss exports
and import trade with a particular country, the more complementary their
industrial structures are likely to be, the closer they are likely to begeographically, historically, and culturally, and the lower trade barriers are
likely to be between them.
As shown in Table 2.3, the intensity of intra-areal trade, exports as well as
imports, of each member country of ASEAN was more than 100 in 1989-2005.
Ten countries traded with each other intensively. In exports, the order of
intensity was 1,034 for Laos, 603 for Myanmar, 515 for Singapore, 463 for
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
33/154
18
Table 2.3 Intensity of Trade for 1989-2005 Average
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p
Brun ei Cambodia Indon esia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Ph il ippines Singapore Tha il an d Vietnam ASEAN EU13 NAFTA MERCOSUR OTHERS ROW
a Brunei 1 511 1 121 1 177 357 958 4 390 5 28 0 355 9
b Cambodia 4 22 1114 128 6 17 261 624 2341 328 56 229 1 41 33
c Indonesia 134 408 18 243 328 225 503 185 284 294 36 67 39 229 63
d Laos 0 45 32 6 0 3 22 3069 11667 1034 76 16 6 55 16
e Malaysia 833 210 210 20 628 227 961 400 236 463 37 98 32 155 52
f Myanmar 65 9 237 0 272 46 354 2196 137 603 33 47 6 155 84
g Philippines 38 37 75 96 341 37 337 294 247 257 50 139 10 153 48
h Singapore 1710 989 468 205 1386 1094 350 489 625 515 38 82 31 155 48
i Thailand 219 2210 299 5894 342 949 239 480 513 342 41 96 32 160 77
j Vietnam 12 3307 349 4329 169 106 367 401 217 311 48 61 12 192 86
k ASEAN 790 883 267 1169 567 694 245 398 320 406 37 85 29 162 54
l EU13 49 9 28 11 20 10 18 22 22 17 22 30 47 39 77
m NAFTA 41 8 44 3 61 4 85 68 49 17 59 33 119 66 52
n MERCOSUR 2 4 79 2 48 5 54 23 67 31 45 64 99 83 115
o OTHERS 48 104 168 61 114 156 149 122 146 155 133 49 87 55 67
p ROW 5 37 47 9 33 27 64 63 71 81 56 90 55 60 80
Exports to
Exports from
Source: Authors calculation using data fromIMFs Direction of Trade (CD-ROM, 2006).
ASEAN: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
EU13: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
NAFTA: Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America.
MERCOSUR: Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, and Uruguay.
OTHERS: Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Turkey.
ROW (Rest of the World): other coun tries in addition to ASEAN, EU13, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, and OTHERS.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
34/154
19
Malaysia, 390 for Brunei, 342 for Thailand, 328 for Cambodia, 311 for
Vietnam, 294 for Indonesia, and 257 for the Philippines. These data have been
shown in Figure 2.3. As compared with exports, the intensity of imports was
generally higher. This means that each of the ten countries imported more
heavily from the market within the area while each exported more heavily to
the outside region. The results can, therefore, lead to an intuitive inference
that there is room for increasing exports within the area by diverting from
outside blocs.
Figure 2.3 Trade Intensity of Intra-ASEAN
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200%
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Trade Intensity of Intra-ASEAN
Source: drawn from Table 2.3
Laos-Vietnam trade was very intensive (index was 11,667 and 4,329).
Thailand and Laos trade was also intensive which indicated by the indices
5,894 for Thai exports and 3,069 for Lao exports. Moreover, Cambodia and
Vietnam also showed trade intensity accounting for 2,341 for Cambodias
exports and 3,307 for Vietnams exports. These high intensities are naturally
due to special neighborhood relations. However, some bilateral trade relations
had not existed or existed but less intensive, such as, Brunei-Cambodia,
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
35/154
20
Brunei-Laos, Brunei-Myanmar, Brunei-Vietnam, Cambodia-Indonesia, Cambo-
dia-Myanmar, Cambodia-Philippines, Indonesia-Laos, and so on.
Trade relations with other Asian countries (denoted by OTHERS) were also
intensive for ASEAN taken together (162 for her exports and 133 for
OTHERS). Brunei had the most intensive trade relations with OTHERS
although there was a large imbalance in indices between 355 for Bruneis
exports and 48 for OTHERS exports. In addition, trade intensity between
Indonesia and OTHERS was also noteworthy, reported at 2 29 for Indonesian
exports and 168 for OTHERS exports. Nonetheless, trade intensities of
Cambodia and Laos with OTHERS were very low.
2.4 International Trade Theory
Section 2.3 described the patterns of ASEAN trade. It also illustrated that
some countries traded more or less intensive with one another. It is thus
important to understand why countries engage in international trade, how they
select their trading partners, and which commodities are to be traded and in
what quantities. Answering these questions requires us to consider the basic
natures of the factors affecting international trade. According to Thomas et al.
(1968), there are six potential factors determining international trade flows.
They are physical characteristics of countries, population, capital, distance,
politics, and stage of economic development.
2.4.1 Physical Characteristics of Countries
A countrys physical attributes plays direct and indirect impacts on its
trade with the rest of the world. The first noteworthy consideration is the area,
containing both positive and negative implication. Some countries with large
area have abundant resources, have the technical capabilities to transform their
resources, and are hence able to export a huge volume of product to the world
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
36/154
21
market. Nevertheless, some large countries failed to be on the list of the
leading global trade.
Another important consideration is that countries in different regions differ
largely in their agricultural capabilities and biotic resources. This relates to
the global patterns of climates and soils.
Although the sizable portion of the worlds trade depends on the differences in
resources, it is important to note that the full utilization of such resources
requires other factors of production, respectively, capital, and labor. In
addition, even though the physical environment significantly serves as the
main driving force of international trade, trade flows between industrialized
countries occur despite having little natural endowment needed to produce the
exported products.
2.4.2 Population
Population serves a multiple role in international trade. It is the source of
labor force determining both a countrys ability to exploit its resources and the
kinds of goods it will export and import.
A countrys population also provides its market. How good a market that
country will be for its foreign suppliers is largely determined by the size, per
capita income, and culture of the population. Some kinds of commodities may
be strictly limited to be imported into one country due to cultural attributes of
the population. More specifically, the dietary laws of the Jews of Israel, the
Moslems of the Pakistan, and the Hindus of India have a substantial impact on
trade of those countries.
2.4.3 Capital
Capital determines both the sorts of commodities traded and their
quantity. Most advanced countries tend to export capital intensive products.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
37/154
22
Merchandise trade can also be affected either positively or negatively due to
the international capital flows. When a country sets up a branch plant in a
country that it formerly exported, trade is ordinarily decreased. By doing so,
the exports of goods are replaced with the exports of capital.
2.4.4 Distance
Distance may affect trade in two ways: the movement of goods and
people, and the communication of information. Although a country may enjoy
the cost advantages due to its abundantly natural resources, such as plentifully
skilled labor, and an ample capital, its competitiveness in the world market
may be impeded by great transport costs. Nonetheless, thanks to the
technological development, the long-term downward trend in transport costs
has increased the range of commodities entering international trade.
Distance may also have an impact on trade through the communication of
information. Lack of information because of unfamiliarity with foreign places
and people, can result in indecisive action to good business opportunities.
Distance and information appear to be relatively correlated, since a country
knows the most about its nearest neighbors. Consequently, two countries trade
if they share common border due to not only the savings in cost, but also the
greater knowledge. As in the case of transport costs, technological
advancement is gradually reducing the information barrier by ways of
improved air travel, radio, cable, telephone and internet.
2.4.5 The Political Factor
Governments play a decisive role in expanding or contracting
international trade flows. This can be done through the tools of its
international trade policy, including tariffs, quotas, and other related non-tariff
barriers. When a country faces the balance of payment problems, the
government may attempt to increase its exports while impose some restrictions
on imports. To increase the exports, countries engage in trade-promotion
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
38/154
23
activities such as fairs and exhibitions, associated with various types of
financial and technical assistances to exporters. Since the Second World War,
another way of the governments to exert their influences is the formation of
economic integration. Despite the important roles of the governments in
international trade, several economists prefer the so-called free trade.
2.4.6 Stage of Economic Development.
Per capita income is one of the measures of the stage of economic
development. It provides an indicator to the kind of market that a country may
offer to prospective foreign suppliers. A country with a high level of income
tends to be associated with mass consumption and thus indicates the best
possibility, while the low level of income indicates the least opportunity.
Nevertheless, many countries at a low stage of development can be the
attractive markets because of the enormous size of the population and the
existing total aggregate demand.
2.5 International Trade and Gravity Model
2.5.1 Literature on the Theoretical Foundation of the Gravity Model
The gravity model was originally founded on Newtons physical theory
which states that two bodies attract each other in proportion to their masses
and inversely by the distance between them. The application of the gravity
model to international trade theory aims at explaining the bilateral trade flows
between two economies by regarding them as an organic body that attracts
each other in proportion to their economic size (GDP) and inversely to their
distance. The earlier works only observed the tendency for the volume of
international trade flows to be negatively related to distance between trading
partners, and demonstrated this either with simple graphical techniques (Isard
and Peck, 1954) or rank correlation techniques (Beckerman, 1956).
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
39/154
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
40/154
25
always close to unity. This implied that export flows were almost proportional
to the incomes of the exporting and importing countries.
The subsequent work proposed by Pyhnen (1963) differed in detail rather
than substance from Tinbergen (1962). The author used transport cost terms
instead of physical distance. Then the empirical result from estimating 10
European countries in 1958 yielded the coefficient of determination about
0.94. Furthermore, in the studies of 62 non-communist countries over 1948-
1960, he included two additional variables, one to indicate a countrys trading
area, and the other to represent meteorological conditions. The latter dummy
was generated based on the assumption that the larger the differences between
mean temperatures, the greater the need to exchange commodities.
Nevertheless, the explanatory power of the model had been improved a little.
Linnemann (1966) examined 6,300 commodity trade flows between eighty
non-communist countries in 1959. The key feature that distinguished
Linnemanns work from the previous ones did not lie in testing the model, but
in his effort to propose stronger theoretical underpinnings. He argued that the
explanation on trade flows can be accounted for by three groups of variables:
factors determining the total potential supply of the exporting country;
determinants of total potential demand of the importing country; and the
impediments to trade flows. The ratio of the potential international trade was
defined as the ratio of exports plus imports to GNP, and was hypothesized todepend on the differences in population size between countries. This
hypothesis was then used to test two assumptions: economies of scale and the
diversification of demand at higher levels of income. More precisely, the
hypotheses were: (i) the foreign trade ratio was negatively related with
population; (ii) a countrys foreign trade was independent of its per capita
income.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
41/154
26
Focusing on the analysis of trade resistances, Linnemann (1966) argued that
trade flows are prevented by transport costs, time, socio-cultural distance, and
artificial trade obstacles (tariffs, quotas, etc.). The former three factors were
collectively measured by geographical distance. At the same time, he
criticized Beckerman (1956) and Balassa (1962) for claiming that the
difference between FOB prices for particular commodities could be used as a
measure of economic distance. He argued that this measure could only be
applied to commodities actually traded, but it ignored commodities that were
not traded due to too high transport costs. That is, economic distance was
underestimated by this measure. Linnemann (1966) suggested that the artificial
trade impediments between country pairs were normally and randomly
distributed while preferential trade agreements were not. As a result, he
included the preferential trade variable into his empirical gravity model.
The basic Linnemanns gravity equation can be represented as:
654321
0
ijijjijiij PDNNYYEX (2.2)
where iN and jN denote the number of the exporting and importing countries
population, respectively;ijP is the preferential trade factor; and other variables
are defined as in equation (2.1). The coefficients on population are assumed to
be negative. His empirical model showed that the coefficient of determination
was around 0.8.
These contributions have been followed by several more formal attempts to
derive the gravity equation from models that assumed product differentiation.
The first work supporting this area is Anderson (1979). He laid out a
theoretical foundation at an aggregate level to the gravity model from the
properties of expenditure systems. To do this, Anderson assumed that each
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
42/154
27
country only produced one particular good and had identical Cobb-Douglas
preference. Neither tariffs nor did transport costs appear in this model.
Anderson also reconsidered the same case under CES preference attached in
the appendix. He concluded that his application of the gravity model was an
alternative method to study cross-section budget. However, the model was
mainly limited by the fact that it only held for countries with similar
preferences for traded goods, and identical structure in terms of trade tax and
transport cost.
Helpman and Krugman (1985) indicated that consumers had variety of
preferences where each firm produced a product that was imperfect substitute
for another product and had monopoly power in its own product, under the
condition of imperfect competition. They concluded that when two countries
had similar technologies and preferences, they would naturally trade more with
each other in order to expand the number of choices available for
consumption. Helpman (1987) proved this issue by applying his test on OECD
countries trade data. H is results supported the argument that the gravity
equation could be applied to the trade flows among industrialized countries
where intra-industry trade and monopolistic competition were well developed.
Jeffrey Bergstrand has immensely contributed to the theoretical foundations of
the gravity equation. He derived the gravity equations that could be used to
explain the international trade phenomena in the frameworks of world trademodel (Bergstrand, 1985), Hecksher-Ohlin (H-O) theory and Linder hypothesis
(Bergstrand, 1989), and intra-industry trade theory (Bergstrand, 1990). Each of
these is reviewed in the subsequent paragraphs.
Bergstrand (1985) employed a general equilibrium model of world trade to
derive a generalized gravity equation. One of the important assumptions
made for this framework was that aggregate trade flow was differentiated by
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
43/154
28
place of origin. On demand side, consumers in the importing country were
assumed to maximize their utility in the form of the constant elasticity of
substitution (CES) utility function, subject to their incomes. On supply side,
firms in the exporting country maximized their profit function subject to their
resources, say labor. Then, the general equilibrium condition to solve for the
reduced form of trade flows equation was found by equating demand and
supply functions. However, the reduced form of the trade flow model could
not be seen as the typical gravity model, since it excluded importer and
exporter incomes that were treated as endogenous variables.
In order to derive the gravity equation associated with importer and exporter
incomes, Bergstrand (1985) proposed the small market assumption, implying
that bilateral trade flows were small relative to the rest of the worlds markets.
Consequently, the variation in trade flows and price of this bilateral trade have
negligible impacts on the incomes and prices of the exporters and importers.
Under the small market assumption, the reduced form of the aggregate trade
flows could be expressed as a function of the exporters income, importers
income and other price variables. Since the gravity equation was estimated
using cross-sectional data, the assumptions of identical utility and identical
production functions were made to ensure that the estimated parameters were
constant across all country pairs.
Under the small market, identical utility and identical production functionsassumptions, Bergstrand (1985)s trade flow equation was known as the
generalized gravity equation. The term general comes from the fa ct that the
specification treated exporters income and importers income as exogenous
variables but imposed no restrictions on parameter values, except for being
identical across all country-pairs. Finally, his empirical finding suggested that
the inclusion of the price and exchange rate variables were necessary when
applying gravity equation for international trade analysis.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
44/154
29
Furthermore, Bergstrand (1989) provided an explicit theoretical foundation of
the gravity equation to explain the H-O and Linder theories. Bergstrand s
(1989) work utilized the generalized gravity equation, derived in Bergstrand
(1985). The resulting gravity equation related the bilateral trade flows to
exporters income, importers income, and per capita GDP. The economic
interpretation of these variables is that exporter s GDP was a proxy of the
national output of the exporting country; exporter s per capita GDP
represented the capital-labor endowment ratio of the exporter; importer s GDP
was the importers national income; and finally, importers per capita GDP
was explained as importers per capita income . Finally, Linder hypothesis was
interpreted as the changes in importer s income and per capita income,
reflecting the alternations of expenditure capabilities and taste preferences.
The final paper of Bergstrand reviewed in this thesis is concerned with the
derivation of the gravity equation in the framework of intra-industry trade. The
set up of demand and supply frameworks in Bergstrand (1990) was similar to
Bergstrand (1989).
In order to express the gravity equation in the intra-industry framework,
Bergstrand (1990) substituted the equation of the aggregate trade flows into
the formula of the Grubel-Lloyd index. This yielded a complex function but
far-reaching outcomes, showing explicitly how average levels of and
inequalities between two countries GDPs, per capita GDPs, capital -laborratios, and tariffs influence their degree of intra-industry trade.
Deardorff (1998) derived equation for the value of bilateral trade from
frictionless and impeded trade in the Heckscher-Ohlin framework. For
frictionless trade, the absence of all barriers to trade in homogenous products
caused producers and consumers to be indifferent among trading partners. He
firstly analyzed by assuming that each country has an identical and homothetic
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
45/154
30
preferences. Then, generalizing the result to arbitrary preferences, he found
that the gravity equation still held on average. In the case of impeded trade,
the author obtained gravity equation containing trade costs under the
assumption that each country produced different goods.
Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) argued that the commonly estimated
gravity model is not theoretically grounded. They had developed the
methodology which was based on existing gravity theory by simplifying a
variety of assumptions. They claimed that their derived method consistently
and efficiently estimated a theoretical gravity equation. More details of the
gravity model derived by Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) have been
discussed in section 2.5.2.
Having discussed some key papers concerned with the theoretical foundation
of the gravity equation, it might be useful to turn our attention to the
theoretical foundation of the gravity equation in terms of the empirical data.
While almost all economists in international trade accept that the gravity
model plays an important role in explaining international trade relationship,
the estimation involving zero trade flows is still ambiguous whether to include
the country pairs that do not trade with one another in the data set. Dropping
one country out of the panel of bilateral trade data can dramatically decrease
the number of observations. In addition, international trade theory as well as
the gravity model are utilized to investigate the phenomena of , why twocountries trade more with one another, why there is only unilateral trade (one
country just either exports to or imports from the other), and why both
countries do not trade to each other at all. Including the interesting mystery of
zero trade flows into data set of the gravity equation might provide possible
answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the linear estimation methods
(ordinary least squares (OLS), fixed-effects model (FEM), random-effects
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
46/154
31
model (REM), GMM) for the traditional gravity equation cannot exploit any
extra information from the panel data framework of ze ro trade flows.
Recently, Helpman et al. (2008), among others, proposed a simple but
powerful gravity model of international trade with heterogeneous firms that
were compatible with a number of stylized features of the data, especially in
predicting zero trade flows across country-pairs. They introduced a two-stage
estimation procedure that used an equation for selection into trade partners in
the first stage and a trade flow equation in the second stage. Their empirical
results showed that traditionally estimated coefficients from the gravity model
were biased, largely due to the omission of the number of firms. Finally, they
indicated that large variation in trade particularly occurred in trade between
developed and less developed countries and between pairs of less developed
countries.
In conclusion, before the late 1970s, the gravity model had been used for
empirical analysis of trade flows without any rigorously theoretical
foundation. However, the popularity of the gravity model during that period
had been gained due to its simplicity and high explanatory power. Claims that
the gravity model had been applied without any economic foundation have
been gradually diminished since the work of Anderson (1979). So far, the
theoretical foundation of the gravity model has been provided in many leading
theories of international trade, such as the H-O theory (Deardorff, 1998), andthe new trade theory (Helpman and Krugman, 1985; Helpman, 1987).
Furthermore, theoretical foundation of the gravity model for estimating zero
trade flows in panel data framework is also provided (Helpman et al., 2008).
These have paved the way for further development of the gravity model
regarding the estimation methods. It is, therefore, essential to understand the
econometrics of the gravity model, the literature of which has been reviewed
in section 2.5.3.
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
47/154
32
2.5.2 Theoretical Foundations of the Gravity Equation
Having been discussed a variety of theoretical foundation of the gravity
model in subsection 2.5.1 over the period 1962 to 2008; it may be useful to see
how rigorous foundation of the gravity model can be made. This section
illustrates the detailed derivation of the theoretical gravity equation. The
discussion mainly follows Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) and Anderson
and van Wincoop (2004) in deriving the equation under monopolistic
competition, or product differentiation by region of origin. We begin with a
standard CES utility function for country j
1
111
iji
ij CU (2.3)
which is maximized by consumers subject to
i
ijijj CpY (2.4)
where
i is the CES share parameter
ijC is the consumption of goods from i by consumers in j
jY is the nominal income of consumers in j
ijp is the CIF price of goods from i in region j
Applying the Lagrangean method to the maximization problem, equation (2.3)
and (2.4) can be written as
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
48/154
33
)(),(111
i
ijijjijii
ij CpYCCL
(2.5)
The first order condition with respect toij
C is
01
11111
ijijii
iji
ij
pCCC
L
(2.6)
and the solution to the maximization problem becomes
i
iijij
j
iijpp
yC
1
1
)((2.7)
Now, assume that prices differ between locations due to transportation costs,
and define ip as the exporter FOB price and 1ijt as the trade cost factor
between i and j, so that iijij ptp . This is the iceberg cost model of
transportation costs, where a fraction )1( ijt of each unit shipped melts along
the way. This formulation implies that the CIF value of exports from i to j is
composed of two parts: value of production at the origin (FOB value) and the
shipment cost. The total income of an exporting country i under market
clearance is therefore
j
ijiji
j
ijiijijij
j
ijij
j
iji CtpCptCpCpEXY ))1(( (2.8)
where ijEX is the exports from i to jvalued at importers prices, such that
ijijiij CtpEX (2.9)
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
49/154
34
Inserting equation (2.7) into (2.9) yields the solution for bilateral exports
j
i
iij
iiji
i
iijij
j
iijiij Yp
tp
pp
Y
tpEX
1
1
1
1
)(
)(
)( (2.10)
Specifying the aggregate price index as
1
1
1)(i
iijh p (2.11)
Substituting equation (2.11) into (2.10) results in
j
h
iiji
ijY
tpEX
1
(2.12)
We can now re-write the market-clearing condition in the first part of equation
(2.8) as
j h
ij
jii
j h
iiji
j
j
iji
tYp
tpyEXY
11
1)( (2.13)
In order to derive the gravity equation, we will use equation (2.13) to solve for
the scaled prices ii p and insert the solution into equation (2.12). Re-arranging terms in equation (2.13), we obtain:
1
1
1
)(
j h
ij
jiii
tYYp
(2.14)
Substituting equation (2.14) into (2.12) we get
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
50/154
35
1
1
h
ij
j h
ij
j
ji
ij
t
t
Y
YYEX (2.15)
Denoting world income j
jw YY and dividing both the numerator and
denominator of the right-hand side of equation (2.15) by wY , we obtain
1
1
1
h
ij
j h
ij
w
jw
ji
ij
t
t
Y
YY
YYEX (2.16)
Define a price indexjP such that
1
1
1
111
j h
ij
j
j h
ij
w
j
j
tt
Y
YP (2.17)
wherej denotes share of country js income to the world income.
Substituting equation (2.17) into (2.16) yields
1
jh
ij
w
ji
ijP
t
Y
YYEX (2.18)
Notice that the price index, h , in equation (2.11) can be re-written as
-
8/8/2019 The Potential Challenges of ASEAN Trade in AFTA
51/154
36
1
1
11
1
11
1
11)()(
i
j h
ij
j
iji
i
iiji
i
iijh
tY
tYtpp
and dividing both the numerator and denominator by wY , we have
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
i
j h
ij
j
ij
i
i
j h
ij
w
j
ij
w
ih
t
t
t
Y
Y
t
Y
Y
1
11
i j
ij
ihP
t(2.19)
where i denotes share of country is income to the world income.
Assuming that trade costs are symmetric )( jiij tt or, alternatively, allowing
jiij tt to represent the average trade costs in both directions, leads to a
simplification ih P . Therefore, we can re-write equation (2.19) as
111
i j
ij
iiP
tP (2.20)
which gives us the gravity equation
1
ji
ij
w
ji
ij PP
t
Y
YY
EX (2.2
top related