Measuring the Export Efficiency of Iran’s Pistachio Using Stochastic Frontier Gravity Model

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 3, Volume 34, Issue 1 - Serial Number 47, April 2020, Pages 29-45   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.vi0.83705

Authors

H. Mohammadi^* ; M. Aminizadeh; H. Aghasafari

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: International trade leads to financial and economic development by improving domestic productivity. Given the importance of trade, various trade topics such as intra-industry trade, trade survival, trade balance and trade liberalization have been examined in the research literature. One of the most important trade concepts received less attention is export efficiency. The export efficiency is defined as the ratio of actual exports to the maximum export potential in the destination markets. Pistachio is one of the important products in Iran’s agricultural exports. The share of Iran’s pistachio exports has dramatically decreased from 58 percent in 2000 to 24 percent in 2016. Despite the importance of investigating the exports efficiency in planning and policymaking, there is no empirical study about the measuring pistachio exports efficiency. So, this paper aims to assess the main determinants of pistachio exports of Iran and evaluate the export efficiency in the main destination countries
Methodology and Data: In this study, the stochastic frontier gravity model is employed for investigating the Iran’s pistachio export efficiency in its importing countries. The gravity model is a well-known tool by international trade economists which explains trade flows between two trading countries based on economic size and geographical distance. The analysis is based on panel data covering 42 trading countries during 2001-2016. The selected countries are Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.
Results: The results of Fisher and IPS (Im, Pesaran and Shin) panel unit root tests clearly show that all the variables are stationary. The results of Chaw and Hausman tests indicated that fixed effect model is the best model. The coefficient of Iran’s GDP carries a positive sign on its coefficient and is consistent to expectations. The coefficient of importers’ GDP carries the expected positive sign on its coefficient and is highly statistically significant at 1 percent level, indicating that higher GDP has translated into higher demand and so higher imports. The coefficient of the variable geographical distance is as expected negative and statistically significant at 10 percent level. This means that distance play an impeding role in pistachio exports from Iran to its importers. The coefficient of the variable per capita GDP difference as a proxy of economic difference is positive and significantly statistically at 10 percent level. This shows that pistachio export from Iran to its importing countries with different economic structure is higher compared to importing countries with similar economic structure.
According to the results, the coefficient of the dummy variable for regional trade agreement is positive and statistically significant at 5 percent level. This indicates that membership of Iran and its partner in same agreements has significantly affected Iran’s pistachio exports to its importing countries. The coefficient of the dummy variable for common border is positive and highly statistically significant at 1 percent level indicating that common border between Iran and its partner led to same food-style and lower transaction cost which have increasing effect on Iran’s pistachio exports. The coefficient of dummy variable for high income is positive and significant at 10 percent level, suggesting that Iran’s pistachio exports to high income countries is higher compared to other countries. The coefficient of dummy variable for global economic crisis is negative and highly statistically significant at 1 percent level. This means that economic crisis led to decrease demand for unnecessary food. The coefficient of dummy variable for economic sanctions is negative and highly statistically significant at 1 percent level, showing that economic sanction led to decreasing supply from Iran to its importing countries particularly EU countries.
Based on the efficiency results, none of the country showed100% technical efficiency. Also, the average of Iran’s export efficiency has decreased in all destination markets over the period 2001-2016. In the panels of Asia and Europe as important destination regions, Iran’s export efficiency has increased and decreased respectively.
Discussion: According to the empirical findings, there is a lot of potential in order to increase Iranian pistachio exports to destination countries. Therefore, due to the positive and significant effect of common border, it is suggested that trading countries with same border (land or sea border) should be a top priority for pistachio exports. Also, based on the positive effect of regional trade agreement, it is recommended that exporters be granted through access to larger and safer destination markets by joining larger trade agreements.

Keywords

Export efficiency; Gravity model; Iran; Pistachio export

References

1. Aghlamand S., Rahimi B., Farrokh-Eslamlou H., Nabilou B., and Yusefzadeh H. 2018. Determinants of Iran’s bilateral intra-industry trade in pharmaceutical industry. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 17(2): 822-828.
2. Aigner D., Lovell C.A.K., and Schmidt P. 1977. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics 6: 21–37.
3. Aminizadeh M., Karbasi A., Riahi A., and Ramezani M. 2020. Assessing the Effect of Iran’s Membership in Trade Agreements on Saffron Exports. Journal of Saffron Agronomy and Technology 7(4): 537-549.
4. Ashktorab N. 2012. Investigating Factors Affecting Iranian Pistachio Exports with Emphasis on Food Health. Journal of Economic Studies 2(2): 52-70.
5. Atif R.M., Mahmood H., Haiyun L., and Mao H. 2019. Determinants and efficiency of Pakistan’s chemical products’ exports: An application of stochastic frontier gravity model. PLOS ONE 14(5): 1-15.
6. Atif R.M., Haiyun L., and Mahmood H. 2017. Pakistan's agricultural exports, determinants and its potential: an application of stochastic frontier gravity model. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 26(3): 257-276.
7. Bao H.D., Minh P.V., Thai P.V., and Hieu T.N. 2018. A Stochastic Analysis of Vietnam Bilateral Trade Efficiency. Journal of Economics and Development 20(2): 50-64.
8. Battese G.E., and Coelli T.J. 1988. Production of firm level efficiencies: With a generalized frontier production function and panel data. Journal of Econometrics 38: 387–399.
9. Battese G.E., and Coelli T.J. 1995. A Model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics 20: 325–332.
10. Centre d'Etudes Prospective et d'Informations Internationals. 2019. CEPII Database. Available at http://www.cepii.fr/ (visited 23 July 2019).
11. Deluna R.J., and Cruz E. 2014. Philippine export efficiency and potential: an application of stochastic frontier gravity model. MPRA Paper 53580, University Library of Munich, Germany.
12. Doan T.N., and Xing Y. 2018. Trade efficiency, free trade agreements and rules of origin. Journal of Asian Economics 55(3): 33-41.
13. Dourandish A., Aminizadeh M., Riahi A., and Mehrparvar Hosseini E. 2019. Assessing the Role of Trade Sanctions and Global Economic Crisis on Iran’s Saffron Exports. Journal of Saffron Agronomy and Technology 6(4): 499-511.
14. Dung D.T.K. 2017. Research on determinants of trade balance in Vietnam: a var approach. Journal of Asian Review of Public Affairs and Policy 2(2): 1-15.
15. European Commission. 2010. Trade, growth and world affairs. Trade policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy. European Economic and Social Committee, France.
16. Feldman M.P. 1999. The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8: 5–25.
17. Ferto I., and Szerb A.B. 2017. The role of food crisis and trade costs in the Hungarian maize exports. Problems of Agricultural Economics 353(4): 110-124.
18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2019. FAO statistical databases. Available at http://www.fao.org (visited 20 July 2019).
19. Fugazza M., and Molina A.C. 2016. On the determinants of exports survival. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 37(2): 159-177.
20. Goff M.L., and Singh R.J. 2014. Does trade reduce poverty? A view from Africa. Journal of African Trade 1(1): 14.
21. Hendizadeh H., Karbasi A., Mohtashami T., and Sahabi H. 2019. Ranking of socio-economic variables affecting the bilateral trade of saffron in Iran and business partners. Journal of Saffron Research 7(1): 55-67.
22. Herath H.M.S.P. 2014. The impact of international trade on employment generation a srilankan experience. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management 2(7): 1-8.
23. Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration (IRICA). 2019. Available at https:// irica.gov.ir (visited 20 July 2019).
24. Jarreau J. 2015. Determinants of trade policy: insights from a structural gravity model. The World Bank Economic Review 29(1): 155-163.
25. Kahouli B., and Makttouf S. 2015. The determinants of FDI and the impact of the economic crisis on the implementation of RTAs: A static and dynamic gravity model. International Business Review (24)3: 518-529.
26. Kalirajan K. 1999. Stochastic varying coefficients gravity model: an application in trade analysis. Journal of Applied Statistics 26(2): 185-193.
27. Karbasi A.R., and Aminizadeh M. 2019. Investigating the effective factors on Iran’s pistachio export with emphasis on the role of trade sanctions. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 11(43): 1-22.
28. Koochakzadeh S., and Karbasi A. 2015. Study of the Effective Factors on the Commerce of Iranian Saffron. Journal of Saffron Agronomy and Technology 3(3): 217-227.
29. Liaquat H., Gul N., Irfan A., and Sami A. 2016. Pakistan’s exports efficiency: an application of the stochastic frontier gravity model. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences. Special Issue 164-177.
30. Manwa F., Wijeweera A., and Kortt M.A. 2019. Trade and growth in SACU countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy 63: 107-118.
31. Mohammadi H., Saghaian S.M., Aghasafari H., and Aminizadeh M. 2018. Assessing the effective factors on agricultural intra-Industry trade between Iran and Asian trading partners. Agricultural Economics 12(3): 135-153.
32. Mohammadvand Nahidi M., and Sagezchi P. 2014. The study of effective economic factors on trade openness in Iran under stable and non-stable conditions. Iranian Journal of Applied Economics 4(14): 17-28.
33. Najafi I., Moghaddasi R., and Zeraatkish S.Y. 2016. Stadying the influentionl Factors on Pistachio Export Prices in Major Exporters (Application of GVAR Model). Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 8(31): 193-216.
34. Nasir S., and Kalirajan K. 2016. Information and communication technology-enabled modern services Export performances of Asian economies. Asian Development Review 33(1):1–27.
35. Noviyani D.S., Na W., and Irawan T. 2019. Indonesian export efficiency: a stochastic frontier gravity model approach. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 6(1): 488-497.
36. Piri R. 2016. Investigation of economic factors affecting Iran's trade balance with Turkey. Master Thesis, Tabriz. (In Persian with English abstract)
37. Rasekhi S., Sheidaei Z., and Asadi S.P. 2016. A causal relationship between trade efficiency and economic efficiency: evidence from dynamic simultaneous equations models. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 26(4): 473-487.
38. Ravishankar G., and Stack M.M. 2014. The gravity model and trade efficiency: a stochastic frontier analysis of eastern European countries’ potential trade. The World Economy 37(5): 690-704.
39. Samore G. 2015. Sanctions against Iran: a guide to targets, terms, and timetables. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 28-29.
40. Shepherd B., and Wilson N.L. 2013. Product standards and developing country agricultural exports: The case of the European Union. Food Policy 42: 1-10.
41. Tahir M., Hasnu S., and Estrade M.R. 2018. Macroeconomic determinants of trade openness: empirical investigation of SAARC region. Journal of Asia Business Studies 12(2): 151-161.
42. Tinbergen J. 1962. Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. Twentieth Century Fund, New York.
43. Toossi M., Moghadasi R., Yazdani S., and Ahmadian M. 2011. Regionalism and Iran's Agricultural Trade Promotion in Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). Agricultural Economics 4(4): 131-157.
44. 2010. International Trade after the Economic Crisis: Challenges and New Opportunities. United Nations Publication.
45. World Bank. 2018. World Bank Database. Available at https://databank.worldbank.org (visited 20 July 2019).
46. World Trade Organization (WTO). 2019. Available at https://www.wto.org (visited 20 July 2019).
47. Zahonogo P. 2016. Trade and economic growth in developing countries: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Trade 3(2): 41-56.
48. Zheng Z., Saghaian S., and Reed M. 2012. Factors Affecting the Export Demand for U.S. Pistachios. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 15(3): 139-154.