An Exploration Of The Traditional Customs Union Theory And The Static And Dynamic Effects Of Economic Integration

IntroductionThe do goods developed from regional integrating argon widely documented in writings and have been k presentlyn since the valuate of classical economists (Oslington, 2013). Regional integration has sprain the subject of great interest cod to the perceived benefits of preferential employment arrangements such as usance inwardness, loosen concern ara, and common foodstuff among many new(prenominal)s.This countersignpaper bequeath focus explicitly on usance weddings, exploring the traditionalisticisticistic custom confederation possibility introduced by prof. Jacob Viner. The paper starts by defining usage due north and wherefore examines Viners frame prune of swop reality and make out- pastime effect.It is substanceant to first define usage duty duty barter partnership and introduce the system of tradition heart. In general, responsibility systems often bleed to discriminate either amongst commodities or between countries. Comm odity discrimination occurs where divers(prenominal) commodities atomic number 18 subjected to different rates of job whereas expanse discrimination occurs where different countries atomic number 18 subjected to different rates of duty on the same commodity (Lipsey, 1960). The supposition of custom merger is specify by the latter(prenominal) part which involves geographical discrimination by imposition of external dutys to imports from non-member states.As defined by (Clausing, 2000), a usage duty coalescency is a form of preferential passel arrangement that involves a tariff- indigent grocery admission charge between member countries while imports from non-member countries are subjected to a common external tariff. usage legal jointure have for a keen-sighted time formed the basis for regional integration. This has primarily been driven by the perceived duty benefits for having such betray agreements between member countries. Some of the best-known customs pa rtnerships include the Benelux formed by Belgium, capital of Luxembourg and Netherlands Zollverein which was formed by German states and the europium which was established by several states including France, Belgium and Italy, and is now widely recognized as the EU (Strielkowski, 2013). Other examples of customs unions are the Mercosur and the Andean Community (Hannam, 2014).Viners framework of spate launching and trade-diversion effects.Any useful literature exploring the social intumescebeing effects of custom union governance must commence with the hold of the traditional Vinerian orthodoxy which is based on twain master(prenominal) considerations trade mental institution and trade diversion effects. The Vinerian orthodoxy has been the campaign force croupe the huge volume of literature exploring the eudaimonia effects of stinting integration.For a massive time, the perceived trade gains of customs unions had provided the precept for regional integration (Jovanovi c, 1998). Such regional agreements were viewed as good in monetary value of the social well-being benefits. However, fol blueing the work of Viner Jacob, this proffer turned out to be incorrect. apply the concepts of trade creation and trade diversion, Jacob Viner argued that regional trade agreements did non necessarily proceeds trade gains in spite of excreta of trade barriers (Ambrego &038 Riezman 2003 Lipsey 2006).Suppose that two countries A and B agree to form a customs union with hoidenish C remaining away(p) the union. If prior to the establishment of customs union, country A was importation from country C which is a low-spirited toll producer. With the union formed, A chooses to import from country B which is a racy cost producer. In this case, the wel colde is get down despite the benefits of a tariff- discontinue market as trade is diverted from a low cost producer to a high cost producer (Ambrego &038 Riezman 2003 Lipsey 2006). However, if a union was fo rmed between A and C, whence trade will be created and the welfare will increase.Using these static concepts, prof Viner concluded that such regional agreements brook only be beneficial to colleague countries if it consorts to trade in commodities which were not previously traded (trade creation) (Corden, 1972). Whereas if the union was trade diverting by shifting locus of work from inexpensive third country to higher-cost fellow country, indeed the effects are most presumable to be detrimental for twain partner countries and the rest of the world as advantageously (Chipman, 1998 &038 Lipsey, 2006).Since the publication of his creative work in 1950, many economists have been interested in pursuing the impact of these two effects on world welfare. His work has been the madcap force behind later succeeding literature examining the impact of regional trade agreements on welfare.Subsequent empirical workMuch of the empirical literature on customs union formation has been m otivate by the work of Viner (1950). Prior to Vinerian orthodoxy, it had been public to recognize customs union as always increase welfare. The classical stinting theory behind the formation customs union was the presumption that higher microscope stage of economic integration was beneficial (Jonavonic 1998). custom union formation was viewed as a step closer to free trade liberalization hence was seen as change magnitude world welfare. Viners seminal contributions turn up this argument to be incorrect.However, Viners seminal contributions were chall(a)enged by Meade (1955) on grounds that the orthodoxy overlook some of the benefits resulting in trade-diverting unions such as the benefits arising from substitution in consumption (Chipman, 1998). Lipsey (1957) and Gehrels (1956) criticized the Viners work over the same issue. These authors argued that discernment considerations had to be taken into account when fashioning determinations of the welfare gains and losings (Chipma n, 1998). Dissatis situationion with the Vinerian orthodoxy led to the maturement of other approaches that commited clear propositions including the general theory of the second best and the hurt of trade-volume approach.It is important to note that the traditional Vinerian orthodoxy was based on two simplifying assumptionsConstant costs of drudgery (Nicholls, 1993) Fixed proportions in consumptions (Nicholls, 1993).Meade (1956), Lipsey (1957) and Gehrels (1956) ex escapeed Viners basic model by relaxing the assumption of zero price snatchs of demand (Lee, 1978 p.248). This take oned for the determination of welfare effects with consideration of the changes in part of consumption. Kemp (1969), Michaely (1965) and Vanek (1965) relaxed the assumption of constant costs.What is lose from traditional customs union theory? anyway these limitations, the traditional Vinerian orthodoxy take care to be missing important dynamic tail assemblydidates which are critical in determin ation of the welfare effect. The traditional customs union theory seems to foreshorten more on trade creation and trade diversion effects that are likely to be tiny, ignoring those that are all important(p) in determining the net gains/losings from integration.Pro-competitive effectOne particular aspect missing is the pro-competitive effect. For example, many small countries will tend to have a hardly a(prenominal) large firms that whitethorn collude and plagiarise prices at the expense of consumers. Forming customs union and ensuring a tariff free market will increase the degree of contender and force house servant firms to price more in draw and quarter with bare(a) cost (Jovanovic, 1998). This pro-competitive effect will encourage them to cut back inefficiency and force them to price in line with marginal costs, thereby leading master the prices to consumers. This pro-competitive effect make it increasingly catchy for these firms to charge margins in excess of margi nal costs (Josic &038 Josic, 2013)In this regard, Baldwin &038 Venables (1995) emphasize the magnificence of pro-competitive effect and even suggest that regional integration amplifies the pro-competitive effect compared to global integration. shaping of customs union create a large market and subjects producers to new forms of competition. extend in competition forces the firms to be reduce the levels of x-inefficiency and to price in line with marginal cost in order to gain a new market share.Economies of graduated tableAnother criticism of the traditional customs union theory lies in its nonstarter to allow for economies of case (Corden, 1972). Viners digest fails to incorporate the effect of economies of scale. It is a fact that regional integration leads to the formation of larger markets which allows firms to exploit greater economies of scale. usage union formation will therefore lead to the exploitation of greater economies of scale, thereby driving down the costs. With the tariff barriers removed, nationally-scaled firms whitethorn benefit greater economies of scale from the larger oneness market created (Cakmak &038 Yilmaz, 2008). Economies of scale will allow these union producers to achieve an optimum scale of production, increase their efficiencies and decrease the average production costs as well as the prices to consumers (Ginsberg, 2010 95)Technology spill oversYet another(prenominal) aspect missing in the traditional customs union theory are the larger effects of scientific advances. The productivity and innovative abilities of nationally scaled firms whitethorn further be enhanced by engine room spillovers (Cakmak &038 Yilmaz, 2008). Research and development programs may help in improving technological innovations. There is a greater electromotive force for technological innovation where such unions exist. solicitation or exploitation effectsFurthermore, apt(p) that integration leads to increased efficiency, it is also more l ikely to induce greater investment. This spare investment may lead to medium-term ripening effect in some countries and can even improve long-run outgrowth rates where the supernumerary investment is associated with blistering technical progress (Josie &038 Josie, 2013). From an investment perspective, overseas direct investment will be particularly important in boosting domestic growth.Arguments for and agents removing all tariffsIndeed there appears to be a number of justifiable reasons for customs union formation. A member countrys welfare as well as the worlds welfare can be embossed if tariffs are reduced under such customs unions. However, the greatest benefits would be achieved by ace remotion of the tariffs compared to mere step-down of these tariffs. The removal of all trade barriers will without motion yield significant benefits in terms of reducing monopoly power, improving terms of trade, increasing efficiency, and improving technological innovations through t echnology spill-overs among many others.In fact, customs union theory fails to justify or instead explain the train for customs union formation since complete removal of all trade barriers could have all the benefits without incur potential losses associated with joining customs unions (Jovanovic, 1998). The welfare of a member country is less likely to be raised by a mere reduction in tariffs compared to complete removal. A free trade agreement would therefore tend to have more welfare benefits than a customs union since trade creation is merely dependent on removal of tariff barriers (Clausing, 2000).However, Krueger (1997) points out that free trade agreements may not necessarily yield greater benefits than a customs union and even argues that it can generate additional welfare costs which would otherwise not have been incurred under a customs union. In fact, Krueger (1997) argues that a customs union will always remain prize to a free trade agreement. This points to the need for further analysis of the benefits and costs associated with barren trade agreements and customs unions formation.Conclusion ground on this analysis, this paper concludes that the static concepts of trade creation and diversion cannot appropriately measure the welfare effects of regional integration. nonetheless though Viner seminal contributions points out that consumer welfare may increase due to tariff reductions while welfare cost may accrue from tariff discrimination of customs union, these static effects are trivial when considering the welfare effects of integration. The traditional customs union theory seem to omit dynamic effects that are life-and-death in determining the net gains/losses from integration such as the pro-competitive effect, growth effect, economies of scale, and reduction of x-inefficiencies and monopoly power among many othersA prime example can be seen with the European fusion, a angiotensin-converting enzyme market that has had important conseque nces both within and outside Europe. Following the EUs unity market program, there is now a greater awareness of the importance of formation of customs union and of the value of removing tariff barriers. The EU is not only the largest single importer and exporter, but is also the worlds largest and richest economic entity (Ginsberg, 2010 p.96). The gains associated with joining the union far outweigh the economic risks/costs. The EU is currently planning to expand its reach other European nations. Preferential trading agreements seem to be growing more rapidly, both in size and number.ReferenceAkkoyunlu-Wigley, A., 2006. do of customs union with European sodality on the market structure and price behaviour of Turkish manufacturing industry. utilise scotchs, vol.38 (20).Ambrego, L. and Riezman, R., 2003. Computation and the theory of customs unions. Ontario, Universities of Warwick and horse opera Ontario and NBERBaldwin, R.E. and Venables, A.J., 1995. Regional economic integra tion. In Handbook of International stintings, vol.3 , edited by G.M. Grossman and K. Rogoff. Amsterdam noth-Holland, pp.1597-1644Cakmak, O.A. and Yilmaz, S., 2008. The dynamic effects of economic integration a comparative plain on the competitive power of bomb calorimeter and EU-8 (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia). Gazi University.Chipman, J.S., 1998. Welfare effects of trade-diveriting customs unions a quantitative approach, USA, University of Minnesota.Clausing, K.A., 2000. Customs unions and free trade areas. Journal of Economic integration, vol 15 (3), pp.418-435Corden, W.M., 1972. Economies of scale and customs union theory. Nuffield College, Oxford Publishers., Journal of Political Economy, vol.80 (3)Gehrels, F., 1956. Customs Union from a Single-Country Viewpoint, Review of Economic Studies, 24, pp. 61-64.Ginsberg, R.H., 2010. Demistifying the European Union the enduring logic of regional integration. Rowman &038 Litt lefield publishers4Hannan, D., 2014. The EU is not a free trade area but a customs union until we understand the difference, the disputation about our membership is meaningless. The Telegraph. Available from http//blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100186074/the-eu-is-not-a-free-trade-area-but-a-customs-union-until-we-understand-the-difference-the-debate-about-our-membership-is-meaningless/ Viewed on 30th November 2014.Josic, H. and Josic, M., 2013. Static and dynamic effects of customs union creation, Croatia, strength of Economics and Business ZagrebJovanovic, M. N., 1998. International Economic Integration, London, Routledge.Kemp, M., 1969, The Pure surmisal of International affair and Investment. London Prentice-Hall.Krueger, A., 1997. Free make out Agreements versus Customs Unions, Journal of Development Economics 54, 169-187.Lee, S.A., 1978. Economic relations between West Asia and southeastward Asia. Papers and proceedings of an international conference, Singapore, work of Southeast Asian.Lipsey, R. G., 1957, The theory of customs unions trade diversion and welfare, Economica 24 4046Lipsey, R.G., 1960. The theory of Customs Unions a general survey, The Economic Journal, vol.70, No. 279Lipsey, R.G., 2006. The theory of customs unions trade diversion and welfare. Economica, vernal Series vol, 24. No.93Meade, J.E., 1955, The Theory of Customs Unions. Amsterdam North Holland.Mendes, M., 1986. An secondary approach to customs union theory. Journal of International Economic Integration 1(I), spring publications, pp.43-58Michaely, M., 1965. On Customs Unions and the Gains from Trade, Economic Journal, 75, pp. 577-583.Nicholls, S.A., 1993. Theories of economic integration a selective review, London University of LondonOslington, P., 2013. contextual history, practitioner history and classic stead reading Jacob Viners the customs union issue, North Sydney, Australia, Australian Catholic UniversityStrielkowski, W., 2012. good economics of European integration microeconomic aspects, National University of IrelandViner, J., 1950, The Customs Union Issue. New York Carnegie Endowment for International Peace