Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization

Ed. by Azzam, Azzeddine

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.660

Online
ISSN
1542-0485
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Do Geographical Indications Really Increase Trade? A Conceptual Framework and Empirics

Zakaria Sorgho
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Economics, HEC-Liege, Liege, Belgium
  • Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies on International Trade and Investment, Laval University, QC, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Bruno Larue
  • Department of Agricultural Economics and Consumer Sciences, Laval University, QC, Canada
  • Canada Research Chair in International Agri-Food Trade, Laval University, QC, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-08-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0010

Abstract

Production location matters to many consumers and regulators and policymakers are pressed to statue on labels about country of origin, local foods and geographical indications (GIs). This paper investigates the incidence of the EU policy on GIs on bilateral trade flows. We develop ttheoretical arguments and provide empirical evidence to analyze heterogeneity in consumer preferences regarding country of origin (domestic versus foreign) and the implicit quality signals from GI logos. The objective of the paper is to investigate whether producing GIs really boots bilateral trade, assuming heterogeneity in consumers’ preference. We first develop an analytical framework of a simple partial equilibrium two-country model through a Cobb-Douglas utility structure to assess the impact of GIs on trade. In addition, we empirically corroborate the analytical findings with a unique data on protected GIs by product and European country. Our main findings indicate that GI-products have ambiguous effect on international trade. Indeed, their trade-impact depends on the importance of product for consumers (i. e., the intensity and the reputation of GI-product considered as deterministic weight in consumers’ preference). As expected, a heterogeneity in consumers’ preference – due to home bias about local or foreign varieties – can increase or decrease trade, despite the presence of GI-products.

Keywords: geographical indications; heterogeneous preferences; European intra-trade; food labeling; gravity model

References

  • Anderson, J., and Y. Yotov. 2010. “The Changing Incidence of Geography.” American Economic Review 100: 2157–2186.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, J.E., and E. Van Wincoop. 2003. “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93: 170–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Arkolakis, C., S. Demidova, P.J. Klenow, and A. Rodriguez-Clare. 2008. “Endogenous Variety and the Gains from Trade.” American Economic Review 98 (2): 444–450.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Baldwin, R., and D. Jaimovich. 2012. “Are Free Trade Agreements Contagious?” Journal of International Economics 88 (1): 1–16.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blakeney, M.L. 2014. The Protection of Geographical Indications. Law and Practice. 473. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

  • Bouet, A., C. Emlinger, and V. Lamani. 2015. “What Determines Exports of Luxury Products? the Case of Cognac.” Selected paper for the 2015 annual meeting of the International Trade Research Consortium.Google Scholar

  • Cameron, C., J. Gelbach, and D. Miller. 2011. “Robust Inference with Multiway Clustering.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 29 (2): 238–249.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Chaney, T. 2008. “Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade.” American Economic Review 98 (4): 1707–1721.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deselnicu, O.C., M. Costanigro, D.M. Souza-Monteiro, and D.T. McFadden. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 38 (2): 204–219.Google Scholar

  • Desquilbet, M., and S. Monier-Dilhan. 2012. “Are Geographical Indications A Worthy Quality Signal? A Framework with Endogenous Quality Choice.” TSE Working Parper 11–263.Google Scholar

  • EC. Les Produits Agricoles AOP Et IGP : Un Chiffre. Newsletter. Online: disponible en ligne sur 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/newsletter-2010_fr.pdf Accessed October 04, 2014.

  • Egger, P., M. Larch, K.E. Staub, and R. Winkelmann. 2011. “The Trade Effects of Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3: 113–143.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eriksson, C. 2011. “Home Bias in Preferences and the Political Economics of Agricultural Protection.” Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies 92 (1): 5–23.Google Scholar

  • Fafchamps, M., and F. Gubert. 2007. “Risk Sharing and Network Formation.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 97 (2): 75–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Feenstra, R.C. 2010. “Measuring the Gains from Trade under Monopolistic Competition.” Canadian Journal of Economics 43 (1): 1–28.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Feenstra R., 2016. “Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence”. Second Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press: NJ, 477p.Google Scholar

  • Giles, D.E.A. 1982. “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations: Unbiased Estimation.” Economics Letters 10: 77–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Head, K., and T. Mayer. 2000. “Non-Europe: The Magnitude and Causes of Market Fragmentation in the EU.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 136: 284–314.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Head, K., and T. Mayer. 2002. “Effet Frontière, Intégration Économique Et ‘Forteresse Europe’.” Revue Économie & Prévision 152–153: 71–91.Google Scholar

  • Head, K., and T. Mayer. 2014. “Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and Cook-Book.”. In Gopinath, G., E. Helpman, and K. Rogoff (Eds.) Handbook of International Economics. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Heckman, J.J. 1979. “Sample Selection Biais as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47: 153–161.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Helpman, E., M. Melitz, and Y. Rubinstein. 2008. “Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (2): 441–487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krugman, P.R. 1980. “Scale Economies, Product Differentiation and the Pattern of Trade.” American Economic Review 70: 950–959.Google Scholar

  • Lejárraga, I., B. Shepherd, and F. Van Tongeren. 2013. “Transparency in Non-Tariff Measures: Effects on Agricultural Trade.”. In Beghin, J.C., and B. Hamid (Eds.), Non-Tariff Measures with Market Imperfections: Trade and Welfare Implications. Vol. 12, 99–125. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

  • Lusk, J.L., J. Brown, M. Tyler, I. Proseku, R. Thompson, and J. Welsh. 2006. “Consumer Behavior, Public Policy, and Country-Of-Origin Labeling.” Review of Agricultural Economics 28 (2): 284–292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Markusen, J.R. 2013. “Putting Per-Capita Income Back Into Trade Theory.” Journal of International Economics 90: 255–265.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCallum J., 1995. “National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns.” American Economic Review 85(3): 615–623.Google Scholar

  • Raimondi, V., C. Falco, D. Curzi, and A. Olper. 2016. “Estimating the Trade Effects of the EU Food Quality Policy.” Paper No 244795, 149th Seminar, October 27–28, 2016 Rennes, FranceEAAE.Google Scholar

  • Rauch, J. 1999. “Networks versus Markets in International Trade.” Journal of International Economics 48: 7–35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Silva, J.M.C.S., and S. Tenreyro. 2006. “The Log of Gravity.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 641–658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sorgho, Z., and B. Larue. 2014. “Geographical Indication Regulation and Intra-Trade in the European Union.” Agricultural Economics 45 (s1): 1–12.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Teuber, R. 2011. “Consumers’ and Producers’ Expectations Towards Geographical Indications: Empirical Evidence for a German Case Study.” British Food Journal 113 (7): 900–918.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Teuber, R., S. Anders, and C. Langinier. 2011. “The Economics of Geographical Indications: Welfare Implications.” SPAA Network Working Paper 2011–2016.Google Scholar

  • Van Ittersum, K., M.T.G. Meulenberg, H.C.M. Van Trijp, and M.J.J. Candel. 2007. “Consumers’ Appreciation of Regional Certification Labels: A Pan-European Study.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (1): 1–23.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • World Intellectual Property Organization. “Defining a Name’s Origin: The Case of Feta”. 2017, http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=5578.

About the article

Published Online: 2017-08-04


Citation Information: Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, ISSN (Online) 1542-0485, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0010.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in