This study examines the effect of trade agreements on the bilateral export flows of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. For empirical estimation, we applied a structural gravity model using the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator on annual data from 2000 to 2019. Our approach, following recent developments in gravity trade literature, incorporates domestic sales alongside international trade to fully account for multilateral resistance to trade. The findings show that free trade agreements (FTAs) play a significant role in facilitating trade among SAARC countries, particularly in exporting raw materials and intermediate goods. In contrast, extra-bloc trade largely depends on preferential market access through programmes such as the generalized system of preferences (GSPs) scheme of the European Union. However, preferential tariff schemes designed for the least developed countries have no discernible impact. Surprisingly, no trade facilitation role is evident in the exports of capital goods. Based on these findings, the study offers policy guidance on how the structure of a trade agreement impacts trade connectivity within and beyond the bloc as well as export composition. Well-designed agreements with comprehensive tariff line coverage can facilitate exports of high-value-added products. Moreover, to effectively leverage the trade benefits enabled by GSP arrangements, developing countries must enhance their institutional capacities to ensure compliance with the social, environmental and other prerequisites outlined by GSPs.
AgnostevaD. E., AndersonJ. E., & YotovY. V. (2014). Intra-national trade costs: Measurement and aggregation. National Bureau of Economic Research.
6.
AkhterN., & GhaniE. (2010). Regional integration in South Asia: An analysis of trade flows using the gravity model. The Pakistan Development Review, 49(2), 105–118.
7.
AndersonJ. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106–116.
8.
AndersonJ. E., & Van WincoopE. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.
9.
AwaisN. (2016). Was the SAFTA (phase ii) revision successful? A case study of Bangladesh’s RMG exports to India. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 21(1), 151.
10.
BaierS. L., & BergstrandJ. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade?Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95.
11.
BaierS. L., YotovY. V., & ZylkinT. (2019). On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: Lessons from twenty years of trade integration. Journal of International Economics, 116, 206–226.
12.
BaroncelliE. (2007). The ‘peace dividend,’ SAFTA, and Pakistan-India trade. In NaqviZ. & SchulerP.The challenges and potential of Pakistan-India trade (p. 59). The World Bank.
13.
BeharA., & Cirera-iCrivillé, L. (2013). Does it matter who you sign with? Comparing the impacts of North–South and South–South trade agreements on bilateral trade. Review of International Economics, 21(4), 765–782.
14.
BeverelliC., GourevichI., HeilandI., KeckA., LarchM., & YotovY. (2023). Trade and welfare effects of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement [WTO Staff Working Paper No. ERSD-2023-04]. World Trade Organization.
15.
BorchertI., LarchM., ShikherS., & YotovY. V. (2021). The international trade and production database for estimation (ITPD-E). International Economics, 166, 140–166.
16.
BorchertI., LarchM., ShikherS., & YotovY. V. (2022). The international trade and production database for estimation-release 2 (ITPD-E-R02) [Working Paper No. 2022-07-A]. USITC.
17.
ButtW. A., . (2008). Pakistan’s export potential: A gravity model analysis [Working Paper No. 23]. State Bank of Pakistan, Research Department. https://www.sbp.org.pk/repec/sbp/wpaper/wp23.pdf
18.
CarnegieA. (2013). Instruments of coercion: International institutions and the sites of power in international relations. In APSA 2013 annual meeting paper, American Political Science Association 2013 annual meeting. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2299739
19.
ConconiP., García-SantanaM., PuccioL., & VenturiniR. (2018). From final goods to inputs: The protectionist effect of rules of origin. American Economic Review, 108(8), 2335–2365.
20.
ConconiP., MagermanG., & PlakuA. (2020). The gravity of intermediate goods. Review of Industrial Organization, 57(2), 223–243.
21.
Congressional Research Service. (2021). Generalized system of preferences (GSP): Overview and issues for Congress (rl33663). CRS Reports.
22.
CorreiaS., GuimarãesP., & ZylkinT. (2020). Fast Poisson estimation with high-dimensional fixed effects. The Stata Journal, 20(1), 95–115.
23.
DembatapitiyaP., & WeerahewaJ. (2015). Effects of regional trading agreements on South Asian trade: A gravity model analysis. Tropical Agricultural Research, 26(3), 468–485. https://dl.nsf.gov.lk/bitstream/handle/1/24187/PGIATAR_26_3_468.pdf?sequence=2
24.
de Mello-SampayoF. (2017). Competing-destinations gravity model applied to trade in intermediate goods. Applied Economics Letters, 24(19), 1378–1384.
25.
De SilvaD. G., & LeeS.-C. (2018). Does the role of observer countries in the regional trade agreement matter for intra-regional trade?Applied Economics, 50(20), 2219–2228.
26.
DuttP., MihovI., & Van ZandtT. (2013). The effect of WTO on the extensive and the intensive margins of trade. Journal of International Economics, 91(2), 204–219.
27.
EggerP., & LarchM. (2011). An assessment of the Europe agreements’ effects on bilateral trade, GDP, and welfare. European Economic Review, 55(2), 263–279.
28.
EggerP. H., & NigaiS.(2015). Structural gravity with dummies only: Constrained ANOVA-type estimation of gravity models. Journal of International Economics, 97(1), 86–99.
29.
EicherT. S., & HennC. (2011). In search of WTO trade effects: Preferential trade agreements promote trade strongly, but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 83(2), 137–153.
30.
Esteve-PérezS., Gil-ParejaS., & Llorca-ViveroR. (2020). Does the GATT/WTO promote trade? After all, rose was right. Review of World Economics, 156(2), 377–405.
31.
European Parliament. (2021). Question for written answer E-005461/2021 to the Commission Rule 138 Dominique Bilde (ID). Retrieved 18December2024, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-005461_EN.pdf/
32.
FelbermayrG., & KohlerW. (2010). Modelling the extensive margin of world trade: New evidence on GATT and WTO membership. The World Economy, 33(11), 1430–1469.
33.
FernandesA. M., ForeroA., MaemirH., & MattooA. (2023). Are trade preferences a panacea? The export impact of the African growth and opportunity act. World Development, 162, 106114.
34.
ForgeF., GarredJ., & KwonK. L. (2021). When are tariff cuts not enough? Heterogeneous effects of trade preferences for the least developed countries [Working Paper No. 2106E]. University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
35.
FreemanR., & PienknaguraS. (2019). Are all trade agreements equal? The role of distance in shaping the effect of economic integration agreements on trade flows. Review of World Economics, 155(2), 257–285.
36.
FugazzaM., & MolinaA. (2011). On the determinants of exports survival, policy issues in international trade and commodities study series no. 46. UNCTAD.
37.
GauravK., & BhartiN. (2019). Some common lessons from uncommon FTAs. South Asia Economic Journal, 20(1), 138–157.
38.
GhoshS., & YamarikS. (2004). Are regional trading arrangements trade creating? An application of extreme bounds analysis. Journal of International Economics, 63(2), 369–395.
39.
Gil-ParejaS., Llorca-ViveroR., & Martínez-SerranoJ. A. (2014). Do non-reciprocal preferential trade agreements increase beneficiaries’ exports?Journal of Development Economics, 107, 291–304.
40.
Gil-ParejaS., Llorca-ViveroR., & Martínez-SerranoJ. A. (2016). A re-examination of the effect of GATT/WTO on trade. Open Economies Review, 27(3), 561–584.
41.
Gil-ParejaS., Llorca-ViveroR., & Martínez-SerranoJ. A. (2017). The effect of nonreciprocal preferential trade agreements on benefactors’ exports. Empirical Economics, 52, 143–154.
42.
Gil-ParejaS., Llorca-ViveroR., & Martínez-SerranoJ. A. (2019). Reciprocal vs nonreciprocal trade agreements: Which have been best to promote exports?PLoS ONE, 14(2), e0210446.
43.
GnangnonS. K., & PriyadarshiS. (2017). The multilateral decision on duty free quota free market access and least developed countries’ export performance. Economic Analysis and Policy, 56, 86–100.
44.
GnutzmannH. (2017). The trade effect of GSP removal. Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach, Center (BEROC). https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/2062/1/1024358305.pdf
45.
GradevaK., & Martínez-ZarzosoI. (2016). Are trade preferences more effective than aid in supporting exports? Evidence from the ‘everything but arms’ preference scheme. The World Economy, 39(8), 1146–1171.
46.
GulN., & YasinH. M. (2011). The trade potential of Pakistan: An application of the gravity model. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 16(1), 23–62.
47.
HassanM. K. (2001). Is SAARC a viable economic block? Evidence from gravity model. Journal of Asian Economics, 12(2), 263–290.
48.
HeadK., MayerT., & RiesJ. (2010). The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. Journal of International Economics, 81(1), 1–14.
49.
HeidB., LarchM., & YotovY. V. (2021). Estimating the effects of non-discriminatory trade policies within structural gravity models. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 54(1), 376–409.
50.
Gil-ParejaS., Llorca-ViveroR., & Martínez-SerranoJ. A. (2017). The effect of nonreciprocal preferential trade agreements on benefactors’ exports. Empirical Economics, 52, 143–154.
51.
HelpmanE., MelitzM., & RubinsteinY. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 441–487.
52.
HerzB., & WagnerM. (2011). The dark side of the generalized system of preferences. Review of International Economics, 19(4), 763–775.
53.
HoekmanB., NgF., & OlarreagaM. (2002). Eliminating excessive tariffs on exports of least developed countries. World Bank Economic Review, 16(1), 1–21.
54.
HossainS. M. (2009). South Asian free trade area: Implications for Bangladesh (MPRA paper no. 18517). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18517/1/MPRA_paper_18517.pdf
55.
IshaqM., BatoolS., & FarooqU. (2016). From SAPTA to SAFTA: The trade patterns within the SAARC region. Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics, 26(Special Issue), 337–353.
56.
ItoT., & AoyagiT. (2019). Did the least developed countries benefit from duty-free quota-free access to the Japanese market?Japan and the World Economy, 49, 32–39.
57.
JagdambeS., & KannanE. (2020). Effects of ASEAN-India free trade agreement on agricultural trade: The gravity model approach. World Development Perspectives, 19, 100212.
58.
JangS., & SongE. Y. (2017). Gravity with intermediate goods trade. East Asian Economic Review, 21(4), 295–315.
59.
JeanS., & BureauJ.-C. (2016). Do regional trade agreements really boost trade? Evidence from agricultural products. Review of World Economics, 152(3), 477–499.
60.
JohnsonR. C., & NogueraG. (2012). Accounting for intermediates: Production sharing and trade in value added. Journal of International Economics, 86(2), 224–236.
61.
KhanA., & MahmoodZ. (2000). Pakistan and emerging global trading environment. Vanguard Books.
62.
KumarS., & AhmedS. (2015). Gravity model by panel data approach: An empirical application with implications for South Asian countries. Foreign Trade Review, 50(4), 233–249.
63.
LagetE., OsnagoA., RochaN., & RutaM. (2020). Deep trade agreements and global value chains. Review of Industrial Organization, 57, 379–410.
64.
LarchM., MonteiroJ.-A., PiermartiniR., & YotovY. (2019). On the effects of GATT/WTO membership on trade: They are positive and large after all [Working Paper No. ERSD-2019-09. World Trade Organisation.
65.
LohaniK. K. (2020). Trade flow of India with BRICS countries: A gravity model approach. Global Business Review, 25(1), 22–39.
66.
MajeedR., HaqZ. U., IshaqM., IqbalJ., & UllahZ. (2019). Do EU and US GSPs matter for the cotton and textiles products exports of Pakistan?Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 18(1), 2–18.
67.
Martínez-ZarzosoI., & Márquez-RamosL. (2019). Exports and governance: Is the Middle East and North Africa region different?The World Economy, 42(1), 143–174.
68.
MoktanS. (2008). Evaluating the intra-regional exports and trade creation and trade diversion effects of trade agreements in SAARC countries. South Asia Economic Journal, 9(2), 233–260.
69.
NordåsH. K., & RouzetD. (2017). The impact of services trade restrictiveness on trade flows. The World Economy, 40(6), 1155–1183.
70.
NovyD. (2013). Gravity redux: Measuring international trade costs with panel data. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 101–121.
71.
OliveroM. P., & YotovY. V. (2012). Dynamic gravity: Endogenous country size and asset accumulation. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 45(1), 64–92.
72.
OreficeG., & RochaN. (2014). Deep integration and production networks: An empirical analysis. The World Economy, 37(1), 106–136.
73.
OrnelasE., & RitelM. (2020). The not-so-generalised effects of the generalized system of preferences. The World Economy, 43(7), 1809–1840.
74.
RahmanM., ShadatW. B., DasN. C. (2006). Trade potential in SAFTA: An application of augmented gravity model (CPD Occasional Paper Series, 61). Centre for Policy Dialogue.
75.
RahmanR., ShahriarS., & KeaS. (2019). Determinants of exports: A gravity model analysis of the Bangladeshi textile and clothing industries. FIIB Business Review, 8(3), 229–244.
76.
RauchJ. (2016). Global production: Firms, contracts, and trade structure. CREI lectures in macroeconomics series. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 595–598.
77.
RavensteinE. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167–235.
78.
RoseA. K. (2004). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade?American Economic Review, 94(1), 98–114.
79.
SalmanZ. (2017). Has GSP plus status improved Pakistan’s garments exports?South Asia@ LSE. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/85012/1/southasia-2017-09-06-has-gsp-plus-status-improved-pakistans-garments.pdf
80.
Santos SilvaJ., & TenreyroS. (2022). The log of gravity at 15. Portuguese Economic Journal, 21, 423–437.
81.
SilvaJ. S., & TenreyroS. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.
82.
SilvaJ. S., & TenreyroS. (2011a). Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. Economics Letters, 112(2), 220–222.
83.
SilvaJ. S., & TenreyroS. (2011b). Poisson: Some convergence issues. The Stata Journal, 11(2), 207–212.
84.
TaguchiH., & RubasingheD. C. I. (2019). Trade impacts of south Asian free trade agreements in Sri Lanka. South Asia Economic Journal, 20(1), 1–18.
85.
TinbergenJ. (1962). An analysis of world trade flows. Shaping the World Economy, 3, 1–117.
86.
TreflerD. (1993). Trade liberalization and the theory of endogenous protection: An econometric study of US import policy. Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 138–160.
87.
UllahM. S., & InabaK. (2012). Impact of RTA and PTA on Bangladesh’s export: Application of a gravity model. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12(4), 445–460.
88.
United States Trade Representative. (2017). Trump administration enforces trade preference program eligibility. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/december/trump-administration-enforces
89.
VicardV. (2009). On trade creation and regional trade agreements: Does depth matter?Review of World Economics, 145(2), 167–187.
90.
WijesingheA., & YogarajahC. (2022). Trade policy impact on global value chain participation of the South Asian countries. Journal of Asian Economic Integration, 4(1), 24–48.
91.
World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators 2022. The World Bank.
92.
World Trade Organization. (2023). Regional trade agreements database.
93.
XuZ., LiY., ChauS. N., DietzT., LiC., WanL., ZhangJ., ZhangL., LiY., ChungM. G., & LiuJ. (2020). Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 3(11), 964–971.
94.
YotovY. V. (2022). On the role of domestic trade flows for estimating the gravity model of trade. Contemporary Economic Policy, 40(3), 526–540.
