The Political Economy of PTAs: An Empirical Investigation

Similar documents
Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series

Trade policy III: Export subsidies

Ralph s Strategic Disclosure 1

The Political Economy of International Factor Mobility

Oligopoly. Molly W. Dahl Georgetown University Econ 101 Spring 2009

Basics of Game Theory

Lobbying for a Common External Tariff from Inside and Out

Backwards Induction. Extensive-Form Representation. Backwards Induction (cont ) The player 2 s optimization problem in the second stage

Managerial delegation in multimarket oligopoly

GS/ECON 5010 Answers to Assignment 3 W2005

Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 2: Strategic-Form Games and Nash Equilibrium (2)

Cournot and Bertrand Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly with Endogenous Technology Adoption *

On the Lobbying Behavior Response to Political Asymmetries in International Economic Integration

Emission Quota versus Emission Tax in a Mixed Duopoly with Foreign Ownership

Advanced Microeconomics

Worst Welfare under Supply Function Competition with Sequential Contracting in a Vertical Relationship

EC721B FINAL EXAMINATION SOLUTIONS, FALL 2018

The Role of the Most Favored Nation Principle of the GATT/WTO in the New Trade Model

Problem Set 1: Tariffs and Quotas (Solutions) Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Economics of European Integration TA: Victor Troster Fall 2012

Global Value Chain Participation and Current Account Imbalances

Firms and returns to scale -1- Firms and returns to scale

EC487 Advanced Microeconomics, Part I: Lecture 5

Political Asymmetry and Common External Tariff in a Customs Union

Firms and returns to scale -1- John Riley

Global Free Trade: Regionalism as a Building Block or a Stumbling Block?

Aggregate Demand, Idle Time, and Unemployment

Aggregate Demand, Idle Time, and Unemployment

Competition Policy - Spring 2005 Monopolization practices I

Industrial Organization Lecture 7: Product Differentiation

Choked By Red Tape? The Political Economy of Wasteful Trade Barriers

Does Improved Market Access Raise Plant-Level Productivity? Alla Lileeva. Daniel Trefler

CSR as a bribe to a government

Design Patent Damages under Sequential Innovation

Klaus Conrad: Taxes and Subsidies for Pollution-Intensive Industries as Trade Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1993:

Free Entry and Social Inefficiency under Vertical Oligopoly: Revisited

Welfare consequence of asymmetric regulation in a mixed Bertrand duopoly

Microeconomic Theory -1- Introduction

In the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Microeconomics 1. Graduate School of Management and Economics. Dr. S.

Wireless Network Pricing Chapter 6: Oligopoly Pricing

Gravity channels in Trade

Political Economy of Institutions and Development: Problem Set 1. Due Date: Thursday, February 23, in class.

Department of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Questions and Answers Econ 8712

Workshop for empirical trade analysis. December 2015 Bangkok, Thailand

Tariff Revenue Competition in a Fre Title The Case of Asymmetric Large Countr.

Answer Key: Problem Set 3

Oligopoly. Oligopoly. Xiang Sun. Wuhan University. March 23 April 6, /149

Volume 29, Issue 3. Strategic delegation and market competitiveness

AED 7210, Applied Microeconomics

3.3.3 Illustration: Infinitely repeated Cournot duopoly.

Modeling of Chaotic Behavior in the Economic Model

Lecture #11: Introduction to the New Empirical Industrial Organization (NEIO) -

ISSN CEP Discussion Paper No 1021 November Is the WTO Article XXIV Bad? Monika Mrázová, David Vines and Ben Zissimos

Does Improved Market Access Raise Plant-Level Productivity? Alla Lileeva. Daniel Trefler

INVESTMENT EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCT MARKET COMPETITION

1 + x 1/2. b) For what values of k is g a quasi-concave function? For what values of k is g a concave function? Explain your answers.

Spatial Aspects of Trade Liberalization in Colombia: A General Equilibrium Approach. Eduardo Haddad Jaime Bonet Geoffrey Hewings Fernando Perobelli

Are innocuous Minimum Quality Standards really innocuous?

Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics

Environmental R&D with Permits Trading

s<1/4 p i = 2 3 s s [1/4, 9/16[ p i = p j + 2 s p j 1 if p j < p j p i = 2 3 s if p j p j p i = p j if p j < p j s 9/16

Structural Estimation of Gravity Models with Market Entry Dynamics

EC3224 Autumn Lecture #03 Applications of Nash Equilibrium

YANNICK LANG Visiting Student

Interdependent Preferential Trade Agreement Memberships: An Empirical Analysis

Second Welfare Theorem

ARTNeT Interactive Gravity Modeling Tool

Retailer s product line choice with manufacturer s multi-channel marketing

Introduction to General Equilibrium: Framework.

COMPARING BERTRAND AND COURNOT OUTCOMES IN THE PRESENCE OF PUBLIC FIRMS

ANSWER KEY 2 GAME THEORY, ECON 395

The Sources of Protectionist Drift in

1 Bewley Economies with Aggregate Uncertainty

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups

Nonlinear dynamics in a duopoly with price competition and vertical differentiation

Econ 8601: Industrial Organization (Thomas J. Holmes) Lecture 1. Part 1: The Cost of Monopoly in General Equilibrium. μ 1

Introduction to second order approximation. SGZ Macro Week 3, Day 4 Lecture 1

Gravity Models: Theoretical Foundations and related estimation issues

Asymptotic relations in Cournot s game

Congestion Equilibrium for Differentiated Service Classes Richard T. B. Ma

Strategic Regional Competition among Local Government Firms

Adding Production to the Theory

Information Choice in Macroeconomics and Finance.

Political Cycles and Stock Returns. Pietro Veronesi

Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring

Endogenous IPR and Economic Growth

Session 4-5: The benchmark of theoretical gravity models

Comparative Advantage and Heterogeneous Firms

4. Partial Equilibrium under Imperfect Competition

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2016

Two-sided investments and matching with multi-dimensional cost types and attributes

It Is Much Bigger Than What We Thought: New Estimate of Trade Diversion

The Harris-Todaro model

Industrial Organization II (ECO 2901) Winter Victor Aguirregabiria. Problem Set #1 Due of Friday, March 22, 2013

Should a local public firm be privatized under unidirectional transboundary pollution?

Multiple-Quality Cournot Oligopoly and the Role of Market Size

Katz and Shapiro (1985)

ECO 2901 EMPIRICAL INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION

Static Models of Oligopoly

A three-level MILP model for generation and transmission expansion planning

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS STAFF PAPER SERIES

Transcription:

The Political Economy of PTAs: An Empirical Investigation Giovanni Facchini 1, Peri Silva 2 and Gerald Willmann 3 1 University of Nottingham 2 Kansas State 3 Uni Bielefeld, IfW Kiel Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 1 / 29

Motivation theory suggests CUs welfare dominate FTAs yet many PTAs take the form of FTAs propose/extend model that can explain this empirically test determinants suggested by the model the determinants of forming an agreement as well as the determinants of its type (FTA vs CU) Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 2 / 29

Outline preview of results related literature model setup and solution predictions of the model empirical analysis conclusion Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 3 / 29

Preview of main results If income inequality in prospective member countries is high, and trade imbalances between them are significant, no PTA will be formed in political equilibrium. If a PTA is formed, geographical specialization of production favors a FTA, while uniform production structures lead to a CU. Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 4 / 29

Literature Ornelas (2007), Saggi (2006): Customs Unions raise welfare compared to FTA Grossman and Helpman (1995), Krishna (1998): Welfare reducing FTA are politically viable in the presence of pressure groups Ornelas (2005): With endogenous tariffs the formation of welfare reducing FTA is likely to be undermined Facchini, Silva, Willmann (2013): FTA politically feasible instead of CU due to strategic delegation. Baier and Bergstrand (2004): Empirical determinants of FTA formation. Larch and Egger (2008): Incorporate domino effect of PTA formation. Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 5 / 29

The model: Setup three countries: A and B are the prospective members; country F represents the rest of the world. n + 1 goods are produced: numeraire good 0 is produced by all countries using only labor according to an identity production function, and is freely traded goods 1 thru φn are produced by duopolies with one firm in F, and α 0.5 of the other firm located in A, and (1 α) in B. goods φn + 1 thru n are produced by duopolies with one firm in F, and share α (1 α) of the other firm in B (A). cross-border ownership: share β of a firm owned by locals (and (1 β) by stakeholders in the other member country) marginal costs are constant; oligopolists compete on quantity (Cournot). Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 6 / 29

The model: Setup Mass one of individuals in each prospective member country. Individuals supply one unit of labor, but differ in their ownership share of duopolists. Let γ s,l be the fraction of the duopolists profits received by individual l in country s. We assume wlog γ = 1, typical wealth distributions imply γ m 1, where m denotes the median of the distribution. Each individual has quasi linear preferences u(x) = x 0 + nφ i=1 (Hx i 0.5(x i ) 2 ) + Note that markets are segmented. n j=nφ+1 (Hx j 0.5(x j ) 2 ) Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 7 / 29

The model: Setup The indirect utility function of individual l takes the form: v ( t,γ A,l ) nφ ) = 1 + γ A,l (αβπa i (t) + (1 α) (1 β) πi B (t) i=1 +γ A,l n + + nφ i=1 nφ j=nφ+1 ((1 α) βπ j A (t) + α (1 β) πj B (t) ) t i F,A x i F,A (t A) + n t j F,A x j F,A (t A) j=nφ+1 (1 α) t i B,A x i B,A (t A) + i=1 j=nφ+1 + consumer surplus n αt j B,A x j B,A (t A) (1) Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 8 / 29

Sequence of the game The game has four stages: 1 Given MFN tariffs (status quo) the median voters of A and B decide whether a FTA or a CU will replace the status quo 2 If the status quo is abandoned, voters in A and B elect a local representative 3 The representatives choose the tariff level vis-a-vis the rest of the world, while free trade prevails between A and B 4 Firms compete in quantities, taking as given the trade policies chosen in Stage 3. Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 9 / 29

Solution procedure we solve the game backwards considering variations φ > 0.5, α < 1, and β < 1 in turn start with stage 4 tariff rates are given at this stage country s firm producing good i for country d s market solves the following maximization problem: [ ] max p i xs,d i d c ti s,d xs,d i standard Cournot problem Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 10 / 29

Stage 4 using the fact that demand is linear, and focusing on market A, we obtain the following equilibrium quantities and prices: ) (H + (1 α)tb,a i + ti F,A c x i A,A = x i F,A = x i B,A = 3 ) (H + (1 α)tb,a i 2ti F,A c 3 ) (H (2 + α)tb,a i + ti F,A c 3 ) (H + (1 α)tb,a i + ti F,A + 2c p i A = similar expressions for goods j and markets B and F 3 Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 11 / 29

Third and Second stage Determine the identity of each representative, and the tariff choice under three policy regimes: 1 Status quo policy: Most Favorite Nation tariffs 2 Free Trade Area: non-cooperative preferential agreement 3 Customs Union: cooperative preferential agreement different constraints on tariffs under each regime 1 uniform external tariffs under MFN 2 no tariffs between A and B under FTA 3 dito plus CET under CU Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 12 / 29

Third and Second stage, cont d Important results: standard tariff complementarity for MFN vs FTA tariffs under FTA lower than under MFN cooperative tariff setting only under CU strategic delegation only for CU more protectionist representatives under CU and thus higher tariffs for CU Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 13 / 29

First stage median voter decides on policy regime status quo (MFN) vs PTA and if PTA, which type we ll look at solution graphically considering variations φ > 0.5, α < 1, and β < 1 in turn Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 14 / 29

Trade imbalance: surplus country A 0 1 1. MFN 2. CU 3. FTA 1. CU 2. MFN 3. FTA 1 γ m 1. CU 2. FTA 3. MFN 0.5 1. MFN 2. FTA 3. CU 1. FTA 2. CU 3. MFN φ 1. FTA 2. MFN 3. CU Figure: The median voter s ranking Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 15 / 29

Trade imbalance: deficit country B 0 1 1 γ m 1. MFN 2. FTA 3. CU 0.75 1. FTA 2. MFN 3. CU 0.5 φ 0.33 Figure: The median voter s ranking Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 16 / 29

Trade imbalance Insights: deficit country is the constraint PTA only if trade imbalance not too large and if inequality is not too high Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 17 / 29

Geographical specialization 1 0 1. MFN 2. FTA 3. CU 1. FTA 2. MFN 3. CU 1 γ m 1. MFN 2. CU 3. FTA 1. CU 2. FTA 3. MFN 1. FTA 2. CU 3. MFN.5 α 1. CU 2. MFN 3. FTA Figure 1: The Median s Rankings Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 18 / 29

Geographical specialization Insights: PTA only if inequality not too high if production structures geographically specialized: FTA for more uniform production structures across space: CU results similar for cross-border ownership Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 19 / 29

Theoretical results quick summary of results; that is, hypotheses to be tested empirically If income inequality in prospective member countries is high, and trade imbalances between them are significant, no PTA will be formed in political equilibrium. If a PTA is formed, geographical specialization of production favors a FTA, while uniform production structures lead to a CU. Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 20 / 29

Data dyadic country-pair panel dataset comprising 124 countries time period 1950 2000 in five year steps PTA classification based on Mattevi (2005) own variables: IMB, INEQ, GEO plus standard variables as controls Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 21 / 29

Data PTA classification: de jure: FTA, CU, partial PTA dummy, FTA dummy for type discard partial Main variables: IMB abt : IMF s direction of trade database INEQ abt : max net Gini taken from Solt s Standardized World Income Inequality Database GEO abt = SER at SER bt + IND at IND bt + AGR at AGR bt Standard variables: NATURAL, DCONT, REMOTE, GDPSUM, GDPSIM DKL, SDKL, DROWKL Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 22 / 29

Data Main Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) All Sample PTA FTA CU Geographic specialization (GEO) 42.11 26.33 30.89 21.55 (25.19) (19.48) (19.95) (17.79) Inequality (INEQ) 40.93 34.22 32.32 36.20 (10.26) (8.04) (7.38) (8.22) Trade-Imbalance (IMB) 0.66 0.33 0.37 0.31 (0.34) (0.29) (0.28) (0.29) Total number of observations 30906 773 395 378 Number of EU country pairs 248 248 0 248 Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 23 / 29

Empirical strategy probit model with selection as in Van de Ven and Van Pragg (1981) PTA abt = α 0 + α 1 INEQ ab,t 5 + α 2 IMB ab,t 5 + βx ab,t 5 + ǫ abt expected signs: α 1 < 0 and α 2 < 0 FTA abt = θ 0 + θ 1 GEO ab,t 5 + θ 2 (GEO INEQ) ab,t 5 + v t expected signs: θ 1 > 0 and θ 2 < 0 year fixed effects and averages of RHS variables Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 24 / 29

Empirical results Predicted Sign (1) (2) Marginal Effects CU-FTA decision (latent) GEO + 0.05** 0.06** 0.001** (0.01) (0.01) (0.0005) GEO*INEQ - -0.001** -0.002** (0.0002) (0.0002) PTA decision (selection) INEQ - -0.017** -0.028** -0.001** (0.006) (0.006) (0.0002) IMB - -0.127-0.111-0.004 (0.101) (0.101) (-0.004) Matrix X Elements Number of Obs. 30906 30906 30906 Number of Obs. with FTA-CUs 773 773 773 LR test of indep. eqns. 136.97** 153.51** 153.51** Year Fixed Effects No Yes Yes Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 25 / 29

Empirical Results Matrix X Elements Predicted Sign (1) (2) Marginal Effects Natural + 0.694** 0.703** 0.025** (0.035) (0.035) (0.001) DCONT + 0.204** 0.193** 0.007** (0.06) (0.057) (0.002) REMOTE + 0.843** 0.871** 0.032** (0.199) (0.21) (0.007) GDPSUM + 1.092** 0.599** 0.022** (0.091) (0.114) (0.004) GDPSIM + 0.302** 0.107 0.004 (0.133) (0.135) (0.004) DKL + 0.402** 0.347* 0.012* (0.198) (0.196) (0.007) SDKL - -0.323** -0.319** -0.012** (0.087) (0.084) (0.003) DROWKL - 0.929** 0.883** 0.032** (0.181) (0.182) (0.007) Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 26 / 29

Economic Relevance consider marginal effects for GEO and INEQ if former increases by one standard deviation likelihood of FTA vs CU increases by 1.94% if later increases by one standard deviation likelihood of PTA increases by 2.5% Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 27 / 29

Robustness checks include (significant) standard variables in CU-FTA eqtn include additionally cross-border ownership include INEQ and IMB in PTA eqtn see table 3 in paper 10 yr instead of 5 yr lags cross-section only PTA specification of Baier, Bergstrand and Feng (2013) use controls of Egger and Larch (2008) see table 4 in paper Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 28 / 29

Conclusion extend political economy model of PTA formation suggest novel determinants of PTA formation and for the choice of PTA type test predictions empirically evidence for the role of inequality and trade imbalances in PTA formation and for the role of geographical specialization and cross-border ownership in the choice of FTA vs CU Facchini, Silva, Willmann (May 2016) PE of PTAs: Empirical Investigation Seminar at CAU Kiel 29 / 29