Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2010, 56(12):569-582 | DOI: 10.17221/129/2010-AGRICECON

Competitiveness of agrarian trade of EU-15 countries in comparison with new EU member states

M. SVATO©, L. SMUTKA, O. MIFFEK

The paper analyses the commodity structure of agrarian trade of the EU countries. The comparative advantages of particular aggregations are accentuated from the view-point of their use on the EU internal market, and on the world market. The analysis is based on an evaluation of comparative advantages by means of a modified Ballas index. It is viewed on two levels, for the EU internal market and the world market. The results of the analysis are shown in a chart. Subsequently, the authors implement an idea arising from a BCG (Boston Consulting Group) matrix on the results of a graphical representation. The aim is to point out mainly those aggregations (SITC, rev. 3) which are, or have a potential to be, a pillar of agri-business, and vice versa to show the aggregations which are non-prospective in the long term, or problematic. The analysis is performed on two levels to utilise differences in the commodity structure of agrarian trade in both the cases of the old (EU-15) and the new EU member states (EU-12) (the member states which enlarged the EU in 2004 and 2007). From the results of the analysis, the significant changes are apparent if we compare commodity structures of trade of the countries of the EU-15 and EU-12.

Keywords: competitiveness, Lafay, Ballasa, index, revealed comparative advantage, agrarian trade, European Union

Published: December 31, 2010  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
SVATO© M, SMUTKA L, MIFFEK O. Competitiveness of agrarian trade of EU-15 countries in comparison with new EU member states. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2010;56(12):569-582. doi: 10.17221/129/2010-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Balassa B. (1965): Trade liberalisation and 'revealed' comparative advantages. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 32: 99-123. Go to original source...
    2. Businessinfo.cz (2009): Trade, Investment and Business support. Available at http://www.businessinfo.cz/cz/clanek/strategie-oez-cr-v-zahranici/vyzvy-k-posilenikonkurenceschopnosti/1001537/38519/ (accessed 5.5.2010).
    3. Eururalis (2010): Main conclusions Eururalis 2.0 scenario study towards 2030. Available at http://www.eururalis.nl/general6.htm (accessed 5.5.2010).
    4. European Commission: Agricultural trade statistics, 2010, EUROSTAT database. Available at http://eabouteuropa.eu/agriculture/agrista/tradestats/index_en.htm
    5. Fidrmuc J., Grozea-Helmenstein D., Wörgötter A. (1999): East-West Intra Industry Trade Dynamics. Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, 135: 332-346. Go to original source...
    6. Fischer C., Hartmann M., Reynolds N., Leat P., RevoredoGiha C., Henchion M., Albisu L.M., Gracia A. (2009): Factors influencing contractual choice and sustainable relationships in European agri-food supply chains.
    7. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36: 541-569; doi: 10.1093/erae/jbp041
    8. Hassine B.N., Kandil M. (2 9): Trade liberalisation, agri cultural productivity and poverty in the Mediterranean region. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36: 1-29; doi: 10.1093/erae/jbp002
    9. Jeníček V., Krepl V. (2009): The role of foreign trade and its effects. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 55: 211- 220. Go to original source...
    10. Kotler P. (2007): Principles of Marketing, Fourth European Edition. Grada, Praha; ISBN: 978-80-247-1545-2, EAN: 9788024715452.
    11. Krugman P.R., Obstfeld M., (2006): International Economics - theory and policy. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston; ISBN 0-321-31154-X.
    12. Lafay G. (1992): The measurement of revealed comparative advantages. In: Dagenais M.G., Muet P.A. (eds.): International Trade Modeling. Chapman & Hill, London. Go to original source...
    13. Rau M.-L., Van Tongeren F. (2009): Heterogeneous firms and homogenising standards in agri-food trade: the Polish meat case. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36: 479-5 5; doi: 1.1 93/erae/jbp Go to original source...
    14. Svatoą M. (2008): Selected trends forming European agriculture. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 54: 93- 101. Go to original source...
    15. Tomąík K., Rosochatecká E., (2007): Competitiveness of the Finnish Agriculture after ten years in the EU. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 53: 291-297. Go to original source...
    16. Utkulu U., Seymen D. (2004): Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: Evidence for Turkey visà-vis the EU/15. In: European Trade Study Group 6 th Annual Conference, ETSG, Nottingham, September.
    17. UN FAO (2009): The State of Food and Agriculture. FAO, Roma; ISBN 978-92-5-105980-4.
    18. WTO (2009): International Trade Statistics 2008, WTO; ISBN 978-92-870-3407-6.
    19. Zaghini A. (2003): Trade advantages and specialisation dynamics in acceding countries. European Central Bank; ISSN 1561-0810. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content