بررسی همگرایی بازار کشاورزی در کشورهای D8و G7: رویکرد مدل جاذبه
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزیابوالفضل شاه‌آبادی 1 , یونس سلمانی 2 , سید آرش ولی‌نیا 3
1 - دانشیار دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم اجتماعی؛ دانشگاه بوعلی سینا-همدان.
2 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم اقتصادی؛ دانشگاه تربیت مدرس-تهران.
3 - پژوهشگر بانک کشاورزی.
کلید واژه: نرخ ارز, شاخص لیندر, کشورهای اسلامی و کشورهای توسعه یافته,
چکیده مقاله :
این مطالعه به بررسی و مقایسه همگرایی بازار محصولات کشاورزی در D8 و G7 طی دوره زمانی 1995-2012 با استفاده از مدل جاذبه پرداخته است. براساس نتایج برآورد، مدل جاذبه به ترتیب حدود 79 و 96 درصد از ترتیبات تجاری بخش کشاورزی بین کشورهای D8 و کشورهایG7 را توضیح می‌دهد. همچنین، نتایج مطالعه نشان دادند که ضریب برآوردی متغیر ارزش افزوده بخش کشاورزی کشورهای i و j برای گروه D8 و G7 مثبت است. ضریب برآوردی متغیر شاخص لیندر نیز برای کشورهای گروهD8 بی معنی، اما برای کشورهایG7 معنیدار و مثبت بدست آمده است. ضریب برآوردی متغیر جمعیت کشور i برای D8 معنیدار و برابر 25/3- و برای کشورهایG7برابر 69/1 بدست آمد که در سطح قابل قبولی معنیدار است. ضریب برآوردی جمعیت کشور i برای کشورهای گروه D8 و G7 به ترتیب برابر 69/0 و 41/0 می‌باشد. گفتنی است، ضریب برآوردی متغیر نرخ ارز کشور i برای گروه G7 و D8 مثبت و معنیدار است در حالی که ضریب برآوردی متغیر نرخ ارز کشور j برای هر دو گروه از کشورهای مورد بررسی منفی است.
Several problems in different stages of pistachios marketing such as the pistachios transportation mode and its time have been effective on pistachios final price and reducing the quality of the final product in Iran. Since the improvement of transportation infrastructure reduces the cost and time, in this study, based on 2010 dada, using spatial equilibrium model with goal of maximizing net social payoff, has been investigated the effect of reducing transportation cost as index of improvement transportation infrastructure on pistachios producers and consumers in Iran. The results showed that improving transportation infrastructure will be reduced the production and export of pistachios and will increase domestic consumption. Also, based on these results, reducing the transportation cost will causes different effects on the supplier and consumers welfare in different situations. But in general, producers, welfare reduced about 272 million Rials and consumer and total welfare increased by about 2754 and 2482 million Rials respectively. The implementation of this scenario would improve the competitive position pistachios producers in Khorasan-Razavi and Yazd compare to other regions.
- Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1):106-116.
- Anderson, J.E. & Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle, American Economic Review, 93(1): 170–192.
- Anderson. J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1): 106-116.
- Anderson, J. E. (2009). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1): 106-116.
- Article provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in its journal Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, pp. 295-301.
- Bergstrand, J. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: Some microeconomic foundation and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(3): 474–481.
- Bergstrand, J. H. (2010). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor proportions theory in international trade. Review of Economic and Statistics, 71: 143-53.
- Bhagwati, J. (1971). Trade diverting Customs Union and welfare improvement: Clarification. Economic Journal, 81(323): 28-51.
- Bhagwati, J. & Panagaria, A. (1996). The theory of preferential trade agreements: Historical evolution and current trends. The American Economic Review, 86(2): 22-40.
- Bound E. (1987). An econometric study a primary commodity exports from development country regions to world. International Monetary Fund (IMF), 84(2): 191 – 227.
- Carrere, 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.
- Cho, G., Sheldon, I.M. & McCorriston, S. (2002). Exchange rate uncertainty and agricultural trade. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4): 931–942.
- Clausing, K.A. (2011). Trade creation and trade diversion in the Canada-United States free trade agreement. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34: 677-96.
- Cooper, C. A. & Massell, B. F. (1965). Toward a general theory of customs Unions for developing countries. Journal of Political Economy, 73(5), 256-283.
- Deadorff, A.V. (1995). Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical world? NBER Working Paper, No. 5377, Cambridge Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Deardorff, A. (1995). Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical world?, NBER Working Paper No. 5377.
- Dell’Aquila, C., R. Sarker, & K.D. Meilke. (2008). Regionalism and trade in agrifood products. Working Paper 99-5, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, St. Paul, MN.
- Edmonds, C., Croix, S. L. & Li, Y. (2008). China trade: Busting gravity’s bounds. Journal of Asian Economics, 19(5-6): 455-466.
- Evenett, S. J. & Keller, W. (1998). On theories explaining the success of the gravity equation, NBER Working Paper.
- Feenstra, R.C. (2012). Border effects and the gravity equation: Consistent methods for estimation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 49: 491-506.
- Frankel, J. A. (1993). Is Japan creating a Yen Bloc in the East Asia and the Pacific. In: Frankel, J. A. and Kahler, M. Eds. Regionalism and rivalry: Japan and the United States in Pacific Asia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Frankel, J., & S.J. Wei. (2013). Regionalization of World trade and currencies: Economics and politics. In The Regionalization of the World Economy. Edited by J. Frankel. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Furtan, W.H. & Van Melle, B.M. (2004). Canada agricultural trade in NorthAmerica: Do national borders matter? Review of AgriculturalEconomics, 26(3): 317–331.
- Gani, A. & Al Mawali, N. R. (2013). Oman's trade and opportunities of integration with the Asian economies. Economic Modelling, 31: 766–774.
- Gibson, P., Waino, J. Whitley, D. & Bohmen, M. (2006). Profiles of tariffs in Global agricultural markets. Agricultural Economic Report Number 796, Economic Research Service, USDA, January 2001, Washington, D.C.
- Harris Mark, N. & Matyas, L. (1998). The econometrics of gravity models. Melbourne Institute, Working Paper, No.5/98, University of Melbourne
- Haveman, J. & Thursby, J.G. (2002). The impact of tariff and non-tariffbarrier to trade in agricultural commodities: A disaggregated approach.Mimeo, Purdue University.
- Helpman, E. & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition and the international economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
- Helpman, E. (1984). A simple theory of international trade with multinational corporations. Journal of Political Economy, 92(31): 36-51.
- Imran Ullah Khan, I.U. & Kalirajan, K. (2011). The impact of trade costs on exports: An empirical Modeling. Economic Modelling, 28(3): 1341-1347.
- Jafari, Y., Mohd Adib, I. & Kouhestani, M. S. (2011). Determinants of trade flows among D8 countries: Evidence from the gravity model. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 32(3): 21-38.
- Jakab, Z. M., Kovacs, M. A. & Oszlay, A. (2001). How far has trade integration advanced?: An analysis of the actual and potential trade of three Central and Eastern European countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(2): 276-292.
- Jayasinghe, S. & Sarker, R.(2004). Effects of regional trade agreements on trade in agrifood products: Evidence from gravity modeling using disaggregated data. Working Paper 04-WP 374, Iowa State University, Sept. 2004.
- Kalirajan, K. (2010). Sources of variation in export flows over time: A suggested methodology of measurement. International Journal of Business and Economics, 9(2): 175–178.
- Kalirajan, K. P. (2007). Regional cooperation and bilateral trade flows: An empirical measurement of resistance. The International Trade Journal, 21(2): 85–107.
- Kaur, S. & Nanda, P. (2010). India’s export potential to other Saarc countries: A gravity model analysis. Journal of Global Economy, 6(3): 167-184.
- Khaksar Astaneh, H., Yaghoubi, M. & Kalateharabi, V. (2014). Determining revealed comparative advantage and target markets for Iran's stone fruits. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16: 253-264.
- Khan, M. (1974). Import and export demand in developing countries. IMF, Staff Papers, 11(3): 678-693.
- Kristjansdottir, H. (2005). A gravity model for exports from Iceland, Centre for Applied Microeconometrics, Department of Economics University of Copenhagen, http://www.econ.ku.dk/CAM/.
- Krugman, P. (1991). The move toward Free Trade Zones in policy implications of trade and Currency Zones. Article provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in its journal Economic Review, pp 5-25.
- Levin, A., Lin, C. F. & Chu, C. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108: 1–24.
- Lipsey, R. G. (1957). The theory of Customs Unions: Trade diversion and welfare. Economica, 24(93): 40-46.
- Lipsey, R. G. (1971). The theory of Customs Unions: A general equilibrium analysis, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
- Markusen, J. & Rose, A. (1995). The boundaries of multinational enterprises and the theory of international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2): 169-189.
- Martinez-Zarsoso, I. & Nowak-Lehman F. (2003). Augmented gravity model: An empirical application to Mercosur-European Union trade flows. Journal of Applied Economics, 6(2): 291–316.
- Olper, A. & Raimondi, V. (2008). Agricultural market integration in the OECD: A gravity-border effect approach. Food Policy, 33(2): 165–175
- Panagariya, A. (2000). Preferential trade liberalization: Traditional theory and new developments. Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 287-331.
- Peridy, N. (2005). The trade effects of the Euro–Mediterranean partnership: What are the lessons for ASEAN countries? Journal of Asian Economics, 16(1): 125-139.
- Pesaran M. H., Kim K., & Williamson, S. D. (1997). Measuring globalization industries and national industry approach: Empirical evidence across five countries and over time. Journal and International Business Studies, 53(3): 221-241.
- Pesaran, M. H. (1984). Macroeconomic policy in an oil-exporting economy white foreign exchange controls. Economica, 51(203): 253-270.
- Rottgers, D., Fabe, A. & Grote, U. (2010). The canola oil industry and European Union(Eu) trade integration: A gravity model approach. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Hannover 2010, No. 32.
- Roy, M. & Rayhan, M. I. (2011). Trade flows of Bangladesh: A gravity model approach. Economics Bulletin, 31(1): 950- 959.
- Salami, H. (2006). Agricultural land productivity improvement and trade liberalization in Iran: A CGE analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 8: 93-106.
- Sheila, P. (2000). Regionalism among developing countries. Macmillan Press Ltd, Overseas Development Institute, London.
- Summers, L. (2005). Regionalism and the World trading system. In Policy Implications of Trade and Currency Zones: A summary of the Bank’s 1991 Symposium. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. November/December.
- Tinbergen, J. (1962). The World economy. Suggestions for an International Economic Policy, New York: Twentieth Century Fund. W 6529, Cambridge Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Verno, R. (1996). Passing through regionalism: The transition to global markets. The World Economy, 19(6): 1-18.
- Viner, J. (1950). The Customs Union issue, Newyork. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Wonnacott, P. & Mark, L. (1989). Is there a case for free trade areas? In Free Trade Areas and U.S. trade policy. Schott, Jeffrey, Washington, D.C. Institute for International Economics, 61(2): 59-84.
- Wonnacott، G. P. & Wonnacott, R. G. (1981). Is unilateral tariff reduction preferable to a Customs Union? The curious case of missing foreign tariffs. The American Economic Review, 71(4): 69-92.
_||_