1 / 31

Agro-Food Export Competitiveness of the European Union Countries on the World Mark ets

Agro-Food Export Competitiveness of the European Union Countries on the World Mark ets. Imre Fertő and Štefan Bojnec. Outline. Motivation Theoretical background Methodological issues Data and methodology Results Conclusions. Motivation. COMPETE FP7 Project

barton
Download Presentation

Agro-Food Export Competitiveness of the European Union Countries on the World Mark ets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agro-Food Export Competitiveness of the European Union Countries on the World Markets Imre Fertő and ŠtefanBojnec

  2. Outline • Motivation • Theoreticalbackground • Methodologicalissues • Data and methodology • Results • Conclusions

  3. Motivation • COMPETE FP7 Project • Decliningcompetitveness of the EU agriculture • e.g. Ball et al. 2010, EC 2007, FoodDrinkEurope 2011 • Investigatethe export performance using standard empirical trade analysistools

  4. Dynamics of trade specialisation • HOS model • Trade pattern is stable over timeexcept random shockinrelativefactorendowments • New trade theory 1. • Grossman and Helpman (1990. 1991): longrun trade patternonlydependsontherelativefactorsendowments • New trade theory 2 • Krugman (1987) and Lucas (1988): international trade patternstendto be more specialised • Implications (Proudman –Redding (2000): • The dynamics of trade specialization is an empiricalquestion

  5. Previousresearch • Fertő 2008 • Bojnec and Fertő (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) • Török and Jámbor (2013)

  6. Measuringcomparativeadvantage • Balassa index • B = (Xij / Xit) / (Xnj / Xnt) • X export • i product • j country • total export • n set of countries: world market • B>1. revealedcomparativeadvantage

  7. Methodology • Descriptivestatistics • Impact of the EU enlargementin 2004 • Chowtests • Convergency: • Panel unit roottests • Stability of B indicesatproductlevel • Markovmatrices plus mobilityindices • Survivalanalysis

  8. Data • Country coverage: EU27 • Period: 2000-2011 • Trade data • Comtrade-WITS. HS6. • Agri-food trade definedbythe WTO • 789 productgroups

  9. Descriptive Statistics of the B Indices. 2000-2011

  10. Descriptive Statistics of the B Indices. 2000-2011

  11. Changes B indices between 2000 and 2011

  12. Changes B indices between 2000 and 2011

  13. The impact of the EU enlargementin 2004

  14. The impact of the EU enlargementin 2004

  15. Panel unit roottests

  16. Panel unit roottests

  17. Markovmatrix of the EU27

  18. Mobility of B indices

  19. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  20. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  21. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  22. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  23. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  24. Duration of revealed comparative advantages

  25. Histogram of spells

  26. Spells of the B>1

  27. Kaplan-Meiersurvivalrates

  28. Kaplan-Meiersurvivalrates

  29. Conclusions • Mean export growthrate is higherin NMS than OMS • Impact of EU enlargement is restrictedtoonly 5 of 27 countries • Convergencyincomparativeadvantage • Trade pattern is more mobile in NMS than OMS • Duration of comparativeadvantage is higherin NMS than OMS

More Related