Continental Trading Blocs: Are They Natural, or Super-Natural?
55 Pages Posted: 26 Jul 2002 Last revised: 17 Jul 2022
Date Written: December 1993
Abstract
Using the gravity model, we find evidence of three continental trading blocs: the Americas, Europe and Pacific Asia. Intra-regional trade exceeds what can be explained by the proximity of a pair of countries, their sizes and GNP/capitas, and whether they share a common border or language. We then turn from the econometrics to the economic welfare implications. Krugman has supplied an argument against a three-bloc world, assuming no transport costs, and another argument in favor, assuming prohibitively high transportation costs between continents. We complete the model for the realistic case where intercontinental transport costs are neither prohibitive nor zero. If transport costs are low, continental Free Trade Areas can reduce welfare. We call such blocs super-natural. Partial liberalization is better than full liberalization within regional Preferential Trading Arrangements, despite the GATT's Article 24. The super-natural zone occurs when the regionalization of trade policy exceeds what is justified by natural factors. Estimates suggest that trading blocs like the current EC are super-natural.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory
By Harry P. Bowen, Edward E. Leamer, ...
-
Monopolistic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence
-
Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese and U.S. Trade and Direct Foreign Investment Patterns
By Jonathan Eaton and Akiko Tamura
-
Trade and Search: Social Capital, Sogo Shosha, and Spillovers
-
The Gatt's Contribution to Economic Recovery in Post-War Western Europe
-
The Geography of Intra-Industry Trade: Empirics
By Patricia Rice, Martin Stewart, ...
-
Comparative Advantage, Exchange Rates, and G-7 Sectoral Trade Balances