1 / 26

European Integration and Economic Growth: A Counterfactual Analysis

European Integration and Economic Growth: A Counterfactual Analysis. Nauro F Campos Fabrizio Coricelli Luigi Moretti Brunel University Paris School of Economics University of Padova. Conference on “Transition Economics Meets New Structural Economics”

reina
Download Presentation

European Integration and Economic Growth: A Counterfactual Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Integration and Economic Growth:A Counterfactual Analysis Nauro F Campos FabrizioCoricelli Luigi Moretti Brunel University Paris School of Economics University of Padova • Conference on “Transition Economics Meets New Structural Economics” • London, SSEES/UCL, June 2013

  2. Motivation • Are the countries that joined the European Integration project better-off? • Direct costs of EU membership (ok), indirect costs (???), and benefits (??) • Voluminous literature on effects of single market, Euro, enlargements, trade and growth • Range of estimates from Eichengreen-Boltho to Badinger: without Integration, pci Europe 5-20% lower

  3. Counterfactuals are key • Counterfactuals and causality • Wide use of counterfactuals: “EU average” and “compared to France” (“75% of EU average”) • Can we improve upon these counterfactuals?

  4. Research Question and Method • What would have been the growth rates of per capita GDP and productivity in EU countries if they had not become full-fledged EU members? • Synthetic control methods for causal inference in comparative case studies or “synthetic counterfactuals” • Abadie et al: AER 2003, JASA 2009, mimeo 2012

  5. Method: Synthetic counterfactuals • A recent development in econometrics of program evaluation (Imbens and Wooldridge JEL 2009) • “artificial control group” (JEL 2009, p. 79) • It estimates the effect of a given intervention by comparing the evolution of an aggregate outcome variable for a country “treated” to its evolution for a syntheticcontrol group

  6. Synthetic counterfactuals (con’t) • Researcher specifies: (1) treatment (what and when), (2) matching covariates, and (3) “donor pool” (to synthetic/artificial control group) • Method minimizes the pre-treatment distance (mean squared error of pre-treatment outcomes) between the vector of treated country’s characteristics and the vector of potential synthetic control characteristics

  7. What is a SYNTHETIC COUNTERFACTUAL? More formally: Be Y an outcome variable (eg. GDP per capita). where is unknow for . Given N+1 the observed countries, with i=1 the treated country and i=2,…, N+1 the control/donor countries, Abadieet al. (AER 2003, JASA 2010) show that: for . The set of weights is with and . Thus pre-treatment: where Z is a set of covariates/predictors of Y.

  8. Original Example: Basque GDP & ETA

  9. SYNTHETIC COUNTERFACTUAL: Assumptions Assumptions: • Z should contain variables that help the approximation of Y1t pre-treatment, but should not include variables which anticipate the effect. • Donor countries (i=2,…,N+1) should not be affected by the treatment. If assumptions (1) and (2) do not hold, it's likely that the estimation of the post-treatment effect isdownwardbiased. Advantages: • It allows the study of the dynamic effects. • It is designed for case-study, so it can allow the evaluation of treatment independently from: i) the number of treated units; ii) the number of control units; iii) the timing of the treatment. Disadvantages: • It does not allow the assessment the significance of the results using standard (large-sample) inferentialtechniques: only permutation tests on the donor sample (placebo experiment).

  10. What did we do? • Synthetic counterfactuals method • Estimate growth and productivity payoffs • EU membership • All enlargements: 1973, 1980s, 1995, 2004

  11. Three key issues • Year treatment starts (EU membership) • 1973: IRL, DK, UK; 1980s: Greece, SP, Port; 1995: Austria, Fin, Sweden; 2004: Poland CZ etc • Matching over which covariates? • Similar to Abadie AER 2003: investment, labour force, population, share of agriculture in GDP, level of secondary and tertiary education, etc • Donor pool: used a range from whole world to neighbours, but report upper middle income

  12. Main Results

  13. Portugal

  14. Main Sensitivity analysis:2004 Enlargement and Anticipation Not shown today: different GDP measures, of labour productivity, changes in covariate sets, regional evidence, Full range of placebo tests

  15. Statistical significance

  16. DID estimates show most results are statistically significant

  17. Interpretation

  18. Summary and main findings • Strong tendency for the growth and productivity effects from EU membership to be positive • Yet considerable heterogeneity across countries • GDP/productivity significantly increase: Denmark, Ireland, UK, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania • Growth effects tend to be smaller: Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary • Greece is the only exception • Magnitude of aggregate, average effect: 10 percent

  19. Thank you

More Related