Agri-food trade of the new member states since the EU accession

Abstract

In 2004 and 2007, twelve New Member States (NMS) joined the European Union (EU), causing several changes in the field of agriculture. One of the major changes was the transformation of the national agri-food trade. The aim of the paper is to analyse the effects of the EU accession on the NMS agri-food trade, especially considering the revealed comparative advantages. The results suggest that the intensity of the NMS agri-food trade has increased significantly after the accession, though there was a serious deterioration in the NMS agri-food trade balance in most cases. It has also become evident that the NMS agri-food trade was highly concentrated by country and by product, though the concentration has not changed significantly after the EU accession. Moreover, our analyses highlight one of the most important characteristics of the NMS agri-food trade structure – the focus on the agri-food raw materials in export together with the agri-food processed products in import. As to the NMS agri-food trade specialisation, the diversity among member states becomes apparent. Almost all countries experienced a decrease in their comparative advantage after the accession, though it still remained at an acceptable level in most cases. As for the stability of the comparative advantage, the results suggest a weakening trend, underpinned by the convergence of the pattern of revealed comparative advantage. By estimating the survival function to the sample, it can be observed that the accession has radically changed the survival time of agri-food trade, meaning that the revealed comparative advantage has not turned out to be persistent in the period analysed. From the policy perspective, there is a clear need for structural changes in the NMS agriculture and agri-food sector in order to tackle the negative tendencies of the national agri-food trade. The most important long-term goal should be the production and export of higher value-added processed products based on domestic raw materials.  

Balance of Comparative Advantages in the Processed Food Sector of the Danube Countries

“…A confirmation of our research results in regard to the increase in the comparative advantage of Hungary in the analyzed period can be found in [12], as well as their conclusion regarding the positive effects of restructuring the agricultural sector in Hungary. We have also confirmed the statement that Hungary has a comparative advantage in the export of agricultural food products, as evidenced by the research in [14,21]. The positive and increasing comparative advantage of food industry exports in Germany is shown by [13] and confirmed by the results of our research.…”

“…In the majority of countries, there has been a violation of comparative advantage, and trade specialization among member countries has become apparent. As Török and Jambor [21] have pointed out, foreign trade of food products in Hungary has become more dynamic after accession. Concentration by country and by products is expressed and has not changed significantly after joining the EU.…”

Country- and industry-specific determinants of intra-industry trade in agri-food products in the Visegrad countries

“…Moreover, proximity to markets still remains as one of the most important explanations for IIT specialisation (McCorriston and Sheldon, 1991). As to the results on industry-specifi c determinants, the negative sign on VPD is contrary to the majority of the empirical literature (Greenaway et al, 1995;Crespo and Fontoura, 2004;Ekanayake and Veeramachenenim, 2009), while the fi ndings on productivity and FDI are more or less in line with the majority of the literature (Török and Jámbor, 2013;Fertő, 2015).…”

Country and industry specific determinants of intra-industry agri-food trade in the Baltic Countries

“…It seems evident that most productive sectors have higher levels of product differentiation (Török and Jámbor 2013;Fertő 2015). However, the low-quality agri-food trade of the Baltic Countries implies a negative relationship between the productivity and IIT -therefore a negative sign is expected here.…”