Acta Univ. Bohem. Merid. 2012, 15(2):95-106 | DOI: 10.32725/acta.2012.018513

Structure and Competitiveness of Mutual Agrarian Trade of Visegrad Countries

Miroslav Svatoš, Luboš Smutka
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague

Keywords: Agricultural Trade, Visegrad Group, Competitiveness, Structure, Commodities, Territories

Agricultural trade in the case of all of the analyzed countries (the Visegrad group, or only V4) represents only a minor part of the merchandise trade. The overwhelming majority of agricultural trade - export as well as import - je conducted in relation to EU countries. V4 market is also important for all analyzed countries. The share V4 market in individual V4 countries merchandise trade performance is about one fifth. If we focus on the actual objective of the article, which is to identify the comparative advantages of agricultural trade of the V4 countries in the area of commodity structure and territorial structure in relation to "their own internal market" of the V4 group countries, the following may be stated. Within the scope of mutual trade competition (2010), Poland is of course in the best positions (it controls about one third of total exports realized within V4 market). Taking in consideration the mutual trade balance among individual countries - results are the following (2000 - 2010). Polish and Czech agrarian trade is able to reach positive trade balance in relation to V4 market on the other hand Hungarian and Slovakian agrarian trade is in deficit. If we focus further on the distribution of the comparative advantages within the scope of mutual trade of the V4 countries - then it may be stated that Poland clearly dominates. Hungarian export in relation to the market of the V4 countries is also able to gain comparative advantages in some years. However, Czech and Slovak agricultural trade as a whole profile themselves as uncompetitive within the whole area of the V4 countries. But it should be mentioned that despite of Czech and Slovak total agrarian trade is not competitive, individual its segments are able to reach comparative advantages especially at the bilateral level.

JEL classification: F10, F15, Q17, Q18

Published: April 15, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Svatoš, M., & Smutka, L. (2012). Structure and Competitiveness of Mutual Agrarian Trade of Visegrad Countries. Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis15(2), 95-106. doi: 10.32725/acta.2012.018
Download citation

References

  1. Aksoy, A. and J. Benghin, 2004. Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries. World Bank, ISBN 978-0-8213-5863-4. Go to original source...
  2. Balassa, B., 1965. Trade liberalization and 'revealed' comparative advantages. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies. 32(2), 99-123. ISSN 10490078. Go to original source...
  3. Bartosova, D., L. Bartova and J. Fidrmuc, 2008. EU Enlargement Implications on the New Member States Agri-food Trade. In: 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, Ghent, Belgium 44122, European Association of Agricultural Economists. Retrieved from: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/44122.html.
  4. Fidrmuc, J., D. Grozea-Helmenstein and A. Wörgötter, 1999. East-West Intra Industry Trade Dynamics. Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, 135(2), 332-346. Go to original source...
  5. Hinloopen, J., and C. Marrewijk, 2001. On the empirical distribution of the Balassa index. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv/Review of World Economics. 137(1), 1-35. ISSN 1610-2886. Go to original source...
  6. Lafay, G., 1992.The Measurement of Revealed Comparative Advantages. In: M.G. Dagenais and P.A. Muet eds., International Trade Modeling, London: Chapman and Hill, ISBN 0412450003. Go to original source...
  7. Lukas, Z. and J. Mládek, 2006. Further Expanding Agro-Food Trade of the NMS-4 in Europe. The Vienna Institute for Internationla Economic Studies. Monthly report No. 5. ISBN 13 978-3-85209-011-5.
  8. Potter, C. and M. Tilzey, 2007. Agricultural multifunctionality, environmental sustainability and the WTO: Resistance or accommodation to the neoliberal project for agriculture? Geoforum, 38(6), 1290-1303. ISSN 0016-7185. Go to original source...
  9. Proudman, J. and S. Redding, 2000. Evolving Patterns of International Trade. Review of International Economics, 8(3), 373-396. ISSN 1467-9396. Go to original source...
  10. Qineti A., M. Rajcaniova and E. Matejkova, 2009. The competitiveness and comparative advantage of the Slovak and the EU agri-food trade with Russia and Ukraine. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 55(8), 375-383. ISSN 0139-570X. Go to original source...
  11. Smutka, L. and A. Belova, 2011. Vývoj a struktura agrárního zahraničního obchodu zemí Visegradské skupiny v posledních dvaceti letech. Praha: Powerprint, ISBN 978-80-87415-28-3.
  12. UN Comtrade. Trade database, [on-line]. [cit. 2012-03-05] Retrieved from: http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.Aspx.
  13. Utkulu, U., Seymen, D. 2004. Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: Evidence for Turkey vis-à-vis the EU/15. Paper was presented at the European Study Group 6th Conference, ETSG 2004.
  14. World Bank. WDI database [on-line]. [cit. 2012-05-05]. Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.
  15. Zaghini, A., 2003. Trade advantages and specialization dynamics in acceding countries. European Central Bank, Working Paper Series. ISSN 1561-0810. Go to original source...
  16. Zaghini, A., 2005. Evolution of trade patterns in the new EU member states. Economics of Transition. 13(4), 629-658. ISSN 1468-0351. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.