Asean free Trade Area: Discriminatory or Not? A case Study for Vietnam and Singapore



Yüklə 0.75 Mb.
səhifə6/6
tarix25.11.2016
ölçüsü0.75 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6

Appendix 4-A: Per Capita GDP of ASEAN Countries, Current Prices (US$)




1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Singapore

12,091.0

15,381.6

20,659.4

25,215.8

21,009.3

23,077.1

20,723.2

21,208.8

22,155.8

25,352.5

26,836.2

Brunei

14,171.0

15,661.9

14,571.2

17,370.0

13,085.5

18,476.9

16,830.0

17,146.0

18,799.9

22,001.7

25,753.7

Malaysia

2,432.0

3,152.7

3,703.4

4,764.1

3,254.1

3,844.2

3,664.7

3,884.2

4,160.9

4,651.5

5,041.6

Thailand

1,518.2

1,899.1

2,441.8

3,037.5

1,828.7

1,966.8

1,835.8

1,999.3

2,232.9

2,484.4

2,659.0

Indonesia

699.1

821.6

1,016.9

1,264.4

516.0

806.9

772.7

928.1

1,099.7

1,176.0

1,283.2

Philippines

718.1

825.0

949.2

1,206.1

910.4

994.3

913.9

966.2

982.1

1,048.9

1,167.7

Vietnam

98.0

144.1

229.8

337.0

359.7

401.5

413.1

440.0

488.8

552.8

617.8

Laos

210.9

270.8

337.1

388.1

255.2

328.7

326.0

328.9

377.6

431.8

485.2

Cambodia

106.0

270.3

277.2

315.5

254.8

285.0

302.0

317.4

333.4

372.7

430.3

Myanmar

68.4

63.4

93.8

108.7

134.1

177.6

129.2

129.9

196.6

198.6

219.4

Source: World Economic Outlook Database, IMF (2006).
Appendix 4-B: PPP Per Capita GDP of ASEAN Countries (US$)

Countries

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Singapore

12,095.4

13,794.8

17,097.7

19,358.0

20,063.1

23,778.1

23,217.9

24,137.3

24,880.1

27,322.2

28,368.1

Brunei

n.a.

20,869.5

21,003.0

21,213.7

20,283.5

21,170.8

21,944.5

23,186.2

23,786.7

24,142.6

24,825.7

Malaysia

4,725.7

5,758.4

6,736.4

8,039.8

7,842.3

8,866.6

8,911.7

9,263.9

9,778.2

10,551.5

11,201.1

Thailand

3,621.7

4,386.7

5,272.1

6,257.0

5,558.9

6,180.2

6,410.5

6,813.6

7,366.4

7,889.8

8,367.9

Indonesia

2,127.5

2,479.1

2,891.6

3,405.4

3,084.7

3,369.2

3,533.9

3,703.0

3,910.2

4,163.6

4,459.1

Philippines

3,000.3

3,026.3

3,215.1

3,575.0

3,675.1

3,939.3

4,021.5

4,189.0

4,379.7

4,674.5

4,922.8

Vietnam

942.5

1,106.9

1,314.7

1,585.2

1,807.0

2,036.9

2,199.8

2,365.4

2,553.1

2,783.8

3,024.8

Laos

890.136

996.508

1,134.0

1,284.7

1,399.4

1,571.2

1,633.3

1,727.6

1,832.2

1,965.5

2,124.4

Cambodia

1,101.4

1,263.4

1,359.7

1,431.3

1,477.3

1,775.7

1,871.0

1,953.5

2,091.9

2,255.6

2,399.2

Myanmar

542.947

603.514

687.5

786.3

871.8

1,074.2

1,199.9

1,340.1

1,524.9

1,610.5

1,691.2

Source: World Economic Outlook Database, IMF (2006).

Aitken, N. D. (1973), ‘The Effect of the EEC and EFTA on European Trade: A Temporal Cross-section Analysis’, American Economic Review, 63, 5, 881-892.

Al-Mawali, N. (2005), ‘Bilateral Intra-Industry Trade Flows and Intellectual Property Rights Protection: First Empirical Evidence,’ Applied Economic Letters, 12, 823-828.

Athukorala, P., and J. Menon (1997), ‘AFTA and the Investment-Trade Nexus in ASEAN,” The World Economy’, 20, 2, 159-174.

Baier, S. and J. H. Bergstrand (2007), ‘Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?’, Journal of International Economics, 71, 1, 72–95.

Balassa, B. (1965), ‘Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage’, Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33, 99-124.

Balassa, B. and L. Bauwens (1987), ‘Intra-industry Specialization in a Multi-Country and Multi-Industry Framework’, The Economic Journal, 97, 923-939.

Ben-David, D. (1993), ‘Equalizing Exchange: Trade Liberalization and Income Convergence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 3, 653-679.

Ben-David, D. (1996), ‘Trade and Convergence Among Countries’, Journal of International Economics, 40, (3/4), 279-298.

Ben-David, D., and A. Kimhi (2004), “Trade and the Rate of Income Convergence,” Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 13, 4, 419-441.

Bergstrand, J. H. (1985), ‘The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 3, 474-481.

Bikker, J. A. (1987), ‘An International Trade Flow Model with Substitution: An Extension of the Gravity Model’, Kyklos, 40, 3, 315-337.

Bougheas et al. (1999), ‘Infrastructure, Transport Costs and Trade’, Journal of International Economics, 47, 169-189.

Brada, J. C., and J. A. Mendez (1983), ‘Regional Economic Integration and the Volume of Intra-Regional Trade: A Comparison of Developed and Developing Country Experience’, KYKLYOS, 36, 4, 589-603.

Brulhart, M. (2000), ‘Dynamics of Intra-industry Trade and Labor Market Adjustment’, Review of International Economics, 8, 3, 420-435.

Carrère, C. (2006), ‘Revisiting the Effects of Regional Trade Agreements on Trade Flows with Proper Specification of the Gravity Model’, European Economic Review, 50, 2, 223-247.

Chionis, D. and P. Liargovas (2002), ‘An Empirical Investigation of Greek-Balkan Bilateral Trade’, Eastern European Economics, 40, 5, 6-32.

Clarete, R., C. Edmonds and J. S. Wallack (2003), ‘Asian Regionalism and Its Effects on Trade in the 1980s and 1990s’, Journal of Asian Economics, 14, 1, 91-129.

Clark, D. P. and Stanley, D. L. (1999), ‘Determinants of Intra-industry Trade between Developing Countries and the United States’, Journal of Economic Development, 24, 79-94.

Clausing, A. K. (2001), ‘Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Canada – United States Free Trade Agreement’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 34, 3, 677-696.

Cyrus, T. (2004), ‘Does Convergence Cause Trade, or Does Trade Cause Convergence?,” Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 13, 4, 397-418.

Doanh, N. K. and Y. Heo (2007), ‘A Comparative Study of the Trade Barriers in Vietnam and Thailand’, International Area Review, 10, 1, 239-266.

Drysdale, P. and R. Garnaut (1982), ‘Trade Intensities and the Analysis of Bilateral Trade Flows in a Many-country World,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 22, 62-84

Ekanayake, E. M. (2001), ‘Determinants of Intra-industry Trade: The Case of Mexico’, International Trade Journal, 15, 1, 89-112.

Elliott, R. J. R. and K. Ikemoto (2004), ‘AFTA and the Asian Crisis: Help or Hindrance to ASEAN Intra-Regional Trade?’, Asian Economic Journal, 18, 1, 1-23.

Endoh, M. (1999), ‘Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the EEC, the LAFTA and the CMEA: 1960-1994’, Applied Economics, 31, 207-216.

Endoh, M. (2000), ‘The Transition of Postwar Asia-Pacific Trade Relations’, Journal of Asian Economics, 10, 571-589.

Frankel, J. A. (1993), ‘Is Japan Creating a Yen Bloc in East Asia and the Pacific?,” in J. Frankel and M. Kahler (ed.), Regionalism and Rivalry: Japan and the United States in Pacific Asia, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Fukase, E., and L. A. Winters (2003), ‘Possible Dynamic Effects of AFTA for the New Member Countries’, The World Economy, 26, 6, 853-871.

Geraci, V. J. and W. Prewo (1977), ‘Bilateral Trade Flows and Transport Costs’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 1, 67-74.

Ghosh, S. and S. Yamarik (2004), ‘Does Trade Creation Measure Up? A Reexamination of the Effects of Regional Trade Arrangements’, Economics Letters, 82, 213-219.

Greenaway, D. and C. R. Milner (1984), ‘A Cross-section Analysis of Inter-industry Trade in the UK’, European Economic Review, 25, 319-344.

Grubel, H. G. and P. Lloyd (1975), Intra-industry Trade, (London: Macmillan).

Heng, T. M., and V. Gayathri (2004), ‘Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Emerging Economies: The Case of Vietnam’, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 21, 2, 167-182.

Kalirajan, K. P. and R. T. Shand (1998), ‘Trade Flows between Australia, India and South Africa: A Growth Triangle?’, Economic Papers, 17, 89-96.

Karacaovali, B. and N. Limao (2006), ‘The Clash of Liberalizations: Preferential versus Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the European Union’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4793.

Limao, N. (2006), ‘Preferential Trade Agreements as Stumbling Blocks for Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence for the U.S.’, American Economic Review, 96, 3, 896-914.

Linnemann, H. (1966), An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows, (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.).

Markusen et al. (1995), International Trade: Theory and Evidence, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Martinez-Zarzoso, I. (2003), ‘Gravity Model: An Application to Trade between Regional Blocs’, Atlantic Economic Journal, 31, 2, 174-187.

Martinez-Zarzoso, I. and F. Nowak-Lehmann (2003), ‘Augmented Gravity Model: An Empirical Application to Mercosur-European Union Trade Flows’, Journal of Applied Economics, 6, 2, 291-316.

Mátyás, L. (1997), ‘Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model’, The World Economy, 20, 3, 363-368.

Miljkovic, D. and R. Paul (2003), ‘Agricultural Trade in North America: Trade Creation, Regionalism and Regionalisation’, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47, 3, 349–366.

Murshed, S. M. (2001), ‘Patterns of East Asian Trade and Intra-industry Trade in Manufactures’, Journal of Asia Pacific Economy, 6, 1, 99-123.

Oguledo, V.I., and C.R. Macphee (1994), ‘Gravity Models: A Reformulation and an Application to Discriminatory Trade Arrangements’, Applied Economics, 26, 107-120.

Okubo, T. (2006), ‘Trade Bloc Formation in Inter-war Japan: A Gravity Model Analysis’, Journal of Japanese International Economies, 21, 2007, 214-236.

Peridy, N. (2005), ‘The Trade Effects of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: What Are the Lessons for ASEAN Countries’, Journal of Asian Economics, 16, 125-139.

Roberts, Benjamin A. (2004), ‘A Gravity Study of the Proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area’, The International Trade Journal, 18, 4, 335-353.

Sachs, J. D. and A. Warner (1995), ‘Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration’, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1-118.

Sapir, A. (1981), ‘Trade Benefits under EEC Generalized System of Preferences’, European Economic Review, 15, 3, 339-355.

Sharma, S. C. and S. Y. Chua (2000), ‘ASEAN: Economic Integration and Intra-regional Trade’, Applied Economics Letters, 2000, 7, 165-169.

Sohn, Chan-Hyun (2005), ‘Does the Gravity Model Explain South Korea’s Trade Flows?’, The Japanese Economic Review, 56, 4, 417-430.

Son, I. and K. Wilson (1995), ‘Australia-Korea Trade: Recent Structure and Future Prospects’, Economic Papers, 14, 83-96.

Srivastava, R. and T. T. Green (1986), ‘Determinants of Bilateral Trade Flows’, Journal of Business, 59, 4, 623-640.

Taegi, K. and Oh, K-Y. (2001), ‘Country size, Income Level and Intra-industry Trade’, Applied Economics, 33, 3, 401-406.

Tang, D. (2001), ‘The Potential of the APEC Grouping to Promote Intra-Regional Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region’, The Journal of Applied Business Research, 17, 4, 63-68.

Tang, D. (2003), ‘Economic Integration among the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Countries: Linder Effect on Developed and Developing Countries (1985-1999)’, International Trade Journal, 17, 1, 19-49.

Thorpe, M. and Z. Zhang (2005), ‘Study of Measurement and Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in East Asia’, Asian Economic Journal, 19, 2, 231-247.

Tinbergen, J. (1962), Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for An International Economic Polity, (New York: Twentieth Century Fund).

Yu, C-M. J. and D. S. Zietlow (1995), ‘The Determinants of Bilateral Trade Among Asia-Pacific Countries’, Economic Bulletin, 11, 3, 298-305.

Zhang, Z. (2005), ‘Study of Measurement and Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in East Asia’, Asian Economic Journal, 19, 2, 231-247.

CD-ROM:

IMF Direction of Trade Statistics (DOT): CD-ROM



Internet resources:

ASEAN Secretariat: http://www.aseansec.org/

EIU: http://library.sogang.ac.kr/dlsearch/TGUI/Theme/theme1/main.asp

Indo.com: http://www.indo.com/

ITC TradeMap: http://www.trademap.net/itc1/login.htm

Market Access Map: http://www.macmap.org/

Vietnam’s Ministry of Trade: http://www1.mot.gov.vn/%5Cgioithieu.asp

WEO - IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx

국문초록

아세안자유무역지대(AFTA) 가입이 무역의 흐름에 미치는 영향:

베트남과 싱가포르의 비교 분석

이 논문은 AFTA 가입이 무역의 흐름에 미치는 영향을 개도국인 베트남과 선진경제인 싱가포르를 중심으로 비교·분석하고 있다. 중력방정식을 이용하여 고정효과(fixed effect)와 임의효과(random effect) 모형을 국가별로 적용, 지난 16년간 1990-2005년간 베트남과 싱가포르의 주요 무역상대국 23개국을 대상으로 회귀분석을 한 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 베트남과 싱가포르의 다자간 무역흐름을 살펴본 결과 AFTA 가입이 무역전환(trade diversion)을 초래한다는 증거를 보일 수 없었다. 둘째, 지역통합체의 가입에 따른 무역의 흐름은 시차적으로 보면 단기적으로 즉각 반응하지 않음을 알 수 있다. 셋째, 기술혁신과 수송망의 발전으로 물류비용이 크게 감소하였지만 물리적 거리의 중요성을 여전히 관찰할 수 있었다. 넷째, 공통언어의 사용이나 식민지 관계 등 문화적 유사성이 무역의 흐름에 중요한 변수로 작용하는 것으로 드러났다. 다섯째, 무역상대국간의 1인당 GDP의 격차 확대가 무역의 흐름에 부정적으로 작용하는 것으로 나타났다. 끝으로 이 지역의 자유로운 무역의 흐름을 저해하는 요인에 대한 효과적인 대응방안으로는 사회적 인프라의 구축이나 내부개혁 등이 주요 정책 과제로 제시되었다.


핵심어: 아세안자유무역지대(AFTA), 중력모형, 무역전환, 현시비교우위, 산업내 무역, 베트남, 싱가포르


* Faculty of Economics, Thainguyen University, Vietnam, e-mail: nkdoanh@yahoo.com

** Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, Sogang University, Korea, e-mail:

hury@sogang.ac.kr

1 Sharma and Chua (2000) used single gravity equation for Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

2 See Tinbergen (1962) and Linnenmann (1966) for their pioneering works.

3 Carrère (2006), Frankel (1993) and Okubo (2006) used the sum of exports and imports as the dependent variable

4 Psychic distance indicates the lack of familiarity with another country’s laws, institutions, and habits (See Drysdale and Garnaut, 1982).

5 Examples of time-invariant variables include distance, border, common language, ex-colonial relationship, etc.

6 We exclude the countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Brunei because the needed data on these economies are insufficient.

7 We choose these countries because they are the major trading partners of ASEAN.

8 In fact, Vietnam does not share common language with any other countries.

9 We will elaborate more on this in section 3.2.

10 Since the coefficient is not statistically significant, the result is only indicative and must be interpreted with caution.

11 The Trade Intensity Index (TII) is incorporated into this research in order to examine how strong the trade ties are among ASEAN countries over time, and to see whether major shifts have occurred. It is computed as follows: Where Tij is the country (region) i’s total trade with country (region) j; Tiw is country i’s trade with the world; Tjw is the country (region) j’s total trade with the world; Tww is the world’s total trade. A value of TIIij greater than one implying that country j is more important for country i than it is for the world trade as a whole.

12 In this case, Vietnam and other ASEAN countries have relatively similar RCA profile.

13 GDP per capita for ASEAN countries is presented in Appendices 4-A and 4-B.

14 Vietnam joined AFTA in 1996. Thus the data on AFTA/CEPT roadmap is available from 1996. For a detailed explanation on the trade barriers in Vietnam, see Doanh and Heo (2007).

15 Revealed comparative advantage (RCA) is used to determine whether ASEAN countries have relatively different or similar structure of trade (Blassa, 1965; Balassa, 1979; Balassa and Bowens, 1987; Son and Wilson, 1995; Kalirajan and Shand, 1998). It is computed as follows: Where: RCAij is Revealed Comparative Advantage for commodity i of country j; Xij is the country j’s exports of commodity I; ΣXj is the country j’s total exports; Xiw is the world’s exports of commodity I; Xw is the world’s total exports. A value of more than unity implies that the country has a revealed comparative advantage in the product and vice versa.


16Intra-industry trade index (IIT) is included in the analysis in order to examine the degree of balanced trade and overlap between exports and imports (Grubel and Lloyd, 1975; Greenaway and Milner, 1984; Clark and Stanley, 1999; Brulhart, 2000; Ekanayake, 2001; Murshed, 2001 and Thorpe and Zhang, 2005) . It is computed as follows:

Where: Xijk is the country j’s exports of industry i to country k; Mijk is the country j’s imports of industry i from country k. The measure ranges between zero and one. The former indicates complete inter-industry trade, whereas the later represents complete intra-industry trade.




1   2   3   4   5   6


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə