Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Factors affecting import of palm oil by India: A gravity model approach

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12390
Submitted
23 October 2025
Published
20-07-2026

Abstract

India leads globally in imports of vegetable oils, a trend set to continue with a growing population and declining domestic production. Of all the vegetable oils imported by India, palm oil occupies the top one positions. This study aimed to determine factors affecting India's palm oil imports from its primary trading partners. This study investigates the determinants of India’s palm oil imports from its major trading partners within an augmented gravity model framework, estimated using the poisson pseudo maximum likelihood (PPML) technique, employing panel data for 35 trading partner countries over the period 2001–23, based on the 6-digit harmonised system (HS) code 151190 and analysed using STATA. The analysis focuses on assessing the influence of economic size, trade costs and institutional factors on bilateral import flows, thereby offering deeper insights into the structural drivers of India’s palm oil trade dynamics. The results of the Friedman, Pesaran’s and Frees tests indicated there is a cross-sectional dependence (p < 0.01 or 0.05) within the panel data for palm oil. The empirical findings reveal that the gross domestic product (GDP) of partner countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, along with World Trade Organization (WTO) membership, exert a positive and significant influence on palm oil imports. In contrast, variables such as per capita income, distance, continent and common language demonstrated a negative and significant effect. Understanding these intricate dynamics is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to address, emphasising the need for prioritising increased domestic production to reduce reliance on edible oil imports and promote sustainability.

References

  1. 1. Govindaraj GN, Suryaprakash S, Sivaramane N, Murali P. Changes in edible oil preference and present-day consumption status of households: A case of Tamil Nadu state, India. J Oilseeds Res. 2016;33(3):178–84. https://doi.org/10.56739/jor.v33i3.137981
  2. 2. Teja IK, Rao SR, Rao DV, Reddy BR. Performance of oilseeds in India-a temporal analysis. J Oilseeds Res. 2017;34(1):26–31. https://doi.org/10.56739/jor.v34i1.137652
  3. 3. Dohlman EN, Persaud SC, Landes R. India's edible oil sector: Imports fill rising demand. 2003.
  4. 4. Reddy VK, Immanuelraj KT. Area, production, yield trends and pattern of oilseeds growth in India. Econ Aff. 2017;62(2):327. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-4666.2017.00016.X
  5. 5. Mittaine J. Oilseeds and vegetable oils in Asia: a world of diversity. OCL. 2016;23(6):1A. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2016040
  6. 6. Priyati RY. Determinants of global palm oil demand: a gravity approach. Econ J Emerg Mark. 2018;10(2):148–64. https://doi.org/10.20885/ejem.vol10.iss2.art4
  7. 7. Glorius G, Akhmadi H, Widodo AS. Impact of ASEAN-India Free Trade Area on Indonesian palm oil export: a gravity model approach. In: 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020-Social, Humanity and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020). Atlantis Press; 2021. p. 476–80. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.163
  8. 8. Suroso AI. The effect of logistics performance index indicators on palm oil and palm-based products export: The case of Indonesia and Malaysia. Economies. 2022;10(10):261. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10100261
  9. 9. Rosyadi FH, Mulyo JH, Perwitasari H, Darwanto DH. Export intensity and competitiveness of Indonesia's crude palm oil to main destination countries. Agric Econ (Czech Repub). 2021;67(5):189–99. https://doi.org/10.17221/371/2020-AGRICECON
  10. 10. Adhikari S, Poudel D, Munisamy G. Policy effects on global palm oil trade: a gravity model approach. In: 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23–25, Washington DC. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association; 2023.
  11. 11. Montanía CV, Fernández-Núñez T, Márquez MA. The role of the leading exporters in the global soybean trade. Agric Econ (Czech Repub). 2021;67(7). https://doi.org/10.17221/433/2020-AGRICECON
  12. 12. De Maria M, Robinson EJ, Kangile JR, Kadigi R, Dreoni I, Couto M, et al. Global soybean trade-the geopolitics of a bean. 2020. https://doi.org/10.34892/7yn1-k494
  13. 13. Golovko A, Sahin H. Analysis of international trade integration of Eurasian countries: Gravity model approach. Eurasian Econ Rev. 2021;11(3):519–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-021-00168-3
  14. 14. Jafari Y, Ismail MA, Kouhestani MS. Determinants of trade flows among D8 countries: Evidence from the gravity model. J Econ Coop Dev. 2011;32(3).
  15. 15. De Hoyos RE, Sarafidis V. Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata J. 2006;6(4):482–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
  16. 16. Pesaran MH. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir Econ. 2021;60(1):13–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
  17. 17. Pesaran MH. Time series and panel data econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736912.001.0001
  18. 18. Frees EW. Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. J Econom. 1995;69(2):393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
  19. 19. Friedman M. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1937;32(200):675–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522
  20. 20. Silva JS, Tenreyro S. The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat. 2006;88(4):641–58. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641
  21. 21. Gourieroux C, Monfort A, Trognon A. Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: Theory. Econometrica. 1984;52(3):681–700. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913471
  22. 22. Wang J. Analysis and comparison of the factors influencing worldwide four kinds of vegetable oil trade: Based on gravity model. Mod Econ. 2016;7(2):173–84. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2016.72019
  23. 23. Kareem FO, Kareem OI. The issues of zero values in trade data and modelling. Macro Manag Public Policies. 2019;1(1):36–50. https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v1i1.749
  24. 24. Kareem FO, Martinez-Zarzoso I, Brümmer B. Fitting the gravity model when zero trade flows are frequent: A comparison of estimation techniques using Africa's trade data. 2016. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.230588
  25. 25. Khatiwada D, Palmén C, Silveira S. Evaluating the palm oil demand in Indonesia: production trends, yields and emerging issues. Biofuels. 2021;12(2):135–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1461520
  26. 26. Tan KT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR, Bhatia S. Palm oil: Addressing issues and towards sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2009;13(2):420–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.001
  27. 27. Adubi AA, Okunmadewa F. Price, exchange rate volatility and Nigeria's agricultural trade flows: A dynamic analysis. 1999.
  28. 28. McCarthy J. Pass-through of exchange rates and import prices to domestic inflation in some industrialized economies. East Econ J. 2007;33(4):511–37. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2007.38

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.