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

Special issue on Int Conf Spices

Vol. 11 No. sp3 (2024): International Seminar on Spices KAU - 2024

Evaluating the ASEAN-India FTA: Implications for India's black pepper trade

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4688
Submitted
17 August 2024
Published
27-12-2024 — Updated on 18-08-2025
Versions

Abstract

The impact of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) on Indian black pepper was analysed using the SMART and gravity models. The reduction in tariff under AIFTA increased black pepper imports from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries after 2000 and caused a trade creation effect of 19.36 lakh US$. This allowed Indian consumers to benefitted from low-priced black pepper imports from ASEAN countries. Indonesia and Vietnam collectively accounted for nearly 100 % of the trade creation. The distance between India and ASEAN was found to have a negative effect on trade, whereas the GDP of the importing country positively influenced the likelyhood of trade between India and ASEAN countries. The main variable of interest was the AIFTA dummy, which captured the effects of trade creation and trade diversion resulting from the regional trade agreement. The estimated coefficient of the AIFTA dummy was positive and significant, indicating a trade creation effect among AIFTA member countries as a result of the agreement.

References

  1. 1. Ravindran PN, editor. Black Pepper: Piper nigrum. USA: CRC Press; 2000. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203303870
  2. 2. Nair KP. The agronomy and economy of black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) - The "King of Spices". In: Sparks DL, editors. Advances in Agronomy. California: Elsevier academic press; 2004;273-392.
  3. 3. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]. World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Yearbook 2021. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4477en
  4. 4. Spices Board India. State-wise Black Pepper Production Report [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 March 4]. Available from: www.indianspices.com
  5. 5. Nedspice. Pepper Crop Report 2023 [Internet]; 2023 [cited 2024 March 4]. Available from: https://www.nedspice.com/app/uploads/2023/02/Nedspice-Pepper-Crop-Report-2023.pdf.
  6. 6. Kotwal A, Ramaswami B, Wadhwa W. Economic liberalization and Indian economic growth: What's the evidence ?. J Econ Lit. 2011;49(4):1152-99. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/jel.49.4.1152
  7. 7. Francis S. A sectoral impact analysis of the ASEAN-India free trade agreement. Econ Polit Wkly. 2011;46(2):46-55.
  8. 8. Frankel JA, Rose AK. Economic structure and the decision to adopt a common currency. Seminar Papers 611, Stockholm University: Institute for International Economic Studies. 1996.
  9. 9. Mansfield ED, Reinhardt E. Multilateral determinants of regionalism: The effects of GATT/WTO on the formation of preferential trading arrangements. International Organization. 2003;57(4):829-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303574069
  10. 10. Batra A. India's global trade potential: The gravity model approach. Global Econ Rev. 2006;35(3):327-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265080600888090
  11. 11. Joseph KJ. ASEAN-India pact and plantations: Realities of the myths. Econ Polit Wkly. 2009;31:14-18.
  12. 12. Harilal KN. Regional cooperation for whom?. A study of ASEAN-India FTA in the context of plantation/tropical products. Millennial Asia. 2014;5(2):137-55. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0976399614541189
  13. 13. Laird S, Yeats A. The UNCTAD trade policy simulation model. [Internet]; 1986 [cited 2024 April 14]. Available from: https://wits.worldbank.org/data/public/SMARTMethodology.pdf
  14. 14. Jammes O, Olarreaga M. Explaining smart and GSIM. [Internet]; 2005 [cited 2024 April 3]. Available from: https://wits.worldbank.org/witsweb/download/docs/explaining _smart_and_gsim.pdf
  15. 15. Veeramani C, Saini GK. Impact of ASEAN-India Preferential trade agreement on plantation commodities: a simulation analysis. Econ Polit Wkly. [Internet]. 2011[cited 2024 January 3];5:83-92. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41151946
  16. 16. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). A Practical Guide to Trade Policy Analysis [Internet]; 2012 [cited 2024 April 2]. Available from: https://www.wto.org/englishrese/publications_e/wto_unctad12_e.pdf
  17. 17. Tinbergen J, editor. Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for and international economic policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund; 1962
  18. 18. Pöyhönen P. A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv; [Internet]. 1963 [cited 2024 January 3];1:93-100. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40436776
  19. 19. Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y. Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. The Quart J Econ. 2008;123(2):441-87. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.441
  20. 20. Sabu SS, Kuruvila A, Subash SP. Price volatility of black pepper in Kerala: could institutional mechanism such as contract agreement be a solution ?. Indian J Agrl Econ. 2020;75(2): 166-85. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.345132
  21. 21. Balassa B. The theory of economic integration. London: Routledge; 1961
  22. 22. WITS [World Integrated Trade Solutions]. WITS user manual [Internet]; 2011 [cited 2024 January 3]. Available from: https://wits.worldbank.org/data/public/ WITS_User_Manual.pdf
  23. 23. Chandran BS, Sudarsan PK. India-ASEAN free trade agreement: Implications for fisheries. Econ Polit Wkly. 2012;47(16):65-70.
  24. 24. Pereira Villa C, Gómez Abella D, Herrera LO. The colombia-canada free trade area: a partial equilibrium simulation. Semestre Económico. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2024 January 3];15(31):15-42. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1650/16502 4299001.pdf
  25. 25. Harrigan J. Specialization and the volume of trade: do the data obey the laws ?. HandBook of International Trade. 2003;85-118. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.921392
  26. 26. Anderson JE, Van Wincoop E. Trade costs. J Econ Liter. 2004;42(3):691-751. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051042177649
  27. 27. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2008.
  28. 28. Leamer EE, Levinsohn J. International trade theory: the evidence. Handbook of International Economics [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2024 January 3];3:1339-94. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=226540
  29. 29. Eichengreen BJ, Irwin DA. The role of history in bilateral trade flows. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research; 1996. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5565
  30. 30. Fidrmuc J, Fidrmuc J. Disintegration and trade. Rev Inter Econ. 2003;11(5):811-29. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9396.2003.00419.x
  31. 31. Nag B, Sikdar C. Welfare implication of India-ASEAN FTA: An analysis using GTAP model. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Working Paper No. EC-11-06; 2011. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2031637
  32. 32. Jagdambe S, Kannan E. Effects of ASEAN-India free trade agreement on agricultural trade: The gravity model approach. World Dev Perspet. 2020;19:100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100212

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.