Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance: does it only matter for exports?

Magai, Petro Sauti; Ilomo, Mesia Article Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intraregional trade performance: does it only matter for exports? Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Magai, Petro Sauti; Ilomo, Mesia (2024) : Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance: does it only matter for exports?, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2363458 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321506 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: 2332-2039 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaef20 Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance: does it only matter for exports? Petro Sauti Magai & Mesia Ilomo To cite this article: Petro Sauti Magai & Mesia Ilomo (2024) Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance: does it only matter for exports?, Cogent Economics & Finance, 12:1, 2363458, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2024.2363458 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2363458 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 01 Jul 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1188 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Revisiting the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance: does it only matter for exports? Petro Sauti Magai a and Mesia Ilomo b a Department of General Management, University of Dar es Salaam Business School, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; b Department of Finance, University of Dar es Salaam Business School, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ABSTRACT Regions worldwide are increasingly establishing customs unions, yet their impact on trade remains uncertain. This study investigates the influence of the East African Community (EAC) customs union on intra-regional trade performance, specifically assessing whether customs unions affect exports, imports, and total trade similarly. Utilizing the gravity equation of intra-regional trade spanning 2002–2021, the analysis indicates that customs unions do not exhibit a significant effect on exports, imports, or total trade. However, a detailed examination reveals varying effects across EAC partner states. While the customs union notably boosts exports in Tanzania and Burundi, it stimulates imports in Uganda, but dampens imports in Kenya. Moreover, the results are sensitive to market size metrics, with differences observed amongst countries. Notably, when market size is gauged by population, the customs union significantly impacts exports in all EAC partner states except Uganda, albeit with variations in the directions of effects. This study endeavors to comprehensively assess regional integration, employing diverse trade measurement approaches. The findings underscore a heterogeneous trade effect of customs unions, suggesting that generalized analyses may offer limited, and potentially misleading, insights into trade policy effects. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 January 2024 Revised 9 May 2024 Accepted 29 May 2024 KEYWORDS Customs union; trade effects; East African community; gravity model REVIEWING EDITOR Goodness Aye, University of Agriculture, Makurdi Benue State, Benue, Nigeria SUBJECTS Economics; Regional Development; African Studies; International Political Economy; Economics and Development 1. Introduction The East African Community (EAC) inaugurated a Custom Union (CU) in 2005, which attained full establishment in 2010 (EAC, 2021). Within the East African Community customs union (EAC-CU), member states were mandated to fully liberalize internal trade and institute a Common External Tariffs (CET) for dealings with products from non-member countries. Article 3 of the Protocol establishing the EAC-CU outlines its objectives as furthering intra-regional trade liberalization, promoting efficient production within the community, enhancing domestic, cross-border, and foreign investment, and fostering economic development and diversification in industrialization within the community (EAC, 2004). The expectations of the integration include liberalization for both tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs). The implementation of customs unions was anticipated to amplify intra-regional trade (Leyaro, 2021; Mayer & Thoenig, 2016; Mburu, 2016; Pomerlyan & Belitski, 2023). Nevertheless, the commitments of EAC countries in implementing the customs union to enhance trade performance have not been impressive. Hartzenberg (2011) and Rauschendorfer & Twum (2021) have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the EAC-CU. Addressing this puzzle, Qobo (2007) associated the failure of African integration efforts with limited political will to implement the integration. CONTACT Mesia Ilomo [email protected] Department of Finance, University of Dar es Salaam Business School, P.O Box 35046, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2363458. ß2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 2024, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2363458 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2363458 Conversely, Kamau & Odongo (2020) highlighted the significant progress made by the EAC in dismantling barriers to trade, such as reducing tariffs and NTBs, yet they expressed puzzlement over the disappointing trade performance. Principally, trade liberalization within customs unions, such as the EAC-CU, can result in either trade creation or trade diversion (Viner, 1950). In addition, customs unions may result in dynamic benefits in the form of growth of outputs of the member countries and long-term development, attributable to economies of scale, efficiency gains, increased foreign direct investments, and factor mobility (Brada & Mendez, 1988; Ferreira & Steenkamp, 2020; Rueda-Junquera, 2006). The EAC member countries established a customs union to foster intra-regional trade, aiming to boost both exports and imports, with an ultimate goal of contributing to economic growth and development of the community (EAC, 2004). Within each of the EAC member countries, their national trade policies suggest varying focus. For example, Tanzania and Kenya appear to focus on exports (Republic of Kenya, 2017; United Republic of Tanzania, 2003), whereas Rwanda and Uganda trade policies address broader development objectives and, thus, do not explicitly focus on exports (Republic of Rwanda, 2010; Republic of Uganda, 2007). Varying policy focus may have implications over the commitment of these countries towards EAC integration and the resulting trade outcomes. The EAC customs union has been associated with only a limited increase in trade, primarily due to the high prevalence of NTBs in the region, which appear to pose significant obstacles to trade flow (EAC, 2007; Leyaro, 2021). For example, the average trading cost within the EAC region remains prohibitively high (Leyaro, 2021). Further, complaints have arisen regarding communication breakdowns and deviations from agreed-upon rules or regulations concerning NTBs, ultimately discouraging intra-regional trade . Therefore, EAC customs union may have varied effects on intra-regional trade, as affirmed by Pomerlyan & Belitski (2023) in their study of regional integration and economic performance within the Eurasian Economic Union. Indeed, existing literature appear to present mixed findings regarding the effects of customs unions on trade performance. Some studies have indicated positive effects of customs unions on trade (Boiwo et al., 2015; Buigut, 2016; Leyaro, 2021; Pomerlyan & Belitski, 2023; Shinyekwa & Othieno, 2013), while others have reported negative effects (Akkoyunlu-Wigley & Mihci, 2006; Mukhamediyev & Khitakhunov, 2018; Vasudevan & Manalaya, 2021). Additionally, there are studies suggesting the absence of a clear relationship between customs unions or regional integration and intra-regional trade (Obasaju et al., 2019; Vivine, 2019). Kagochi & Durmaz (2018) discovered that three out of four selected regional integrations in sub-Saharan Africa had a positive and significant effect on intra-regional trade. Thus, it is evident that not all regional integrations necessarily lead to increased intra-regional trade. The conflicting findings regarding the impact of customs unions on intra-regional trade performance present a paradox that warrants further investigation, especially in the EAC, where the protocol establishing customs union appears to promote both exports and imports, although the member states appear to have different policy focuses. In particular, there is a need to comprehend the varying impacts of customs unions on intra-regional trade performance and the factors contributing to these discrepancies. For instance, the socioeconomic context of the region, as well as the characteristics of the member countries, may influence the effect of customs unions on intra-regional trade performance ( € Ozer, 2020). While numerous studies have explored the trade effect of the EAC customs union, there remains a scarcity of research examining its diverse effects. Drawing from the different policy focuses of the EAC member countries, which may imply a varying emphasis in the integration, this study revisits the effect of the East African Community (EAC) customs union on intra-regional trade performance to ascertain whether customs unions influence exports, imports, or both. This was accomplished by employing a gravity model to analyze the effect of the EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance over two decades (i.e. 2002 to 2021), taking into account the varied timing of partner countries in joining the EAC-CU. Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya are the founding members of the EAC-CU and have been implementing the customs union since 2005, whereas Burundi and Rwanda became members of the EAC-CU in 2007, South Sudan in 2016, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2022. While acknowledging the seven members of the EAC, the study investigated the impact of customs unions on intra-regional trade in the EAC with five partner states, namely, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. South Sudan was excluded from the study due to data limitations, whereas the DRC was excluded because it acceded EAC in 2022, which 2 P S. MAGAI AND M. ILOMO falls outside the covered period. In principal, DRC is new, potentially with limited experience of the EAC-CU. This study enhances our understanding of customs unions by highlighting their diverse impact on intra-regional trade, thereby enriching the existing body of knowledge of regional integrations. Undertaking a study to re-assess the effect of the EAC customs union, a real life example of regional integration, on intra-regional trade performance transcends academic curiosity, by offering policy implications for regionalism. Notably, despite being optimistic during the inception of the EAC-CU, the outcomes remain varied, potentially because of the diverse policy emphasis of the EAC member countries. These insights became apparent following the application of a gravity model examining the effect of customs union on intra-regional trade in the EAC. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section two offers a literature review, while section three delineates the methodology employed in the study. Section four presents the results, followed by section five, which provides the discussion of the findings. Lastly, section six presents the conclusions drawn from the study together with their implications. 2. Literature review 2.1. Theoretical literature The study utilized the comparative advantage theory and the gravity model. It suggests that countries specialize in producing and exporting goods where they have the greatest cost advantage compared to others (Karimi & Malekshahian, 2018). Boiwo et al. (2015) argued that a country will export goods that use its abundance factor intensively; thus, under free trade, the capital-abundant country is expected to produce relatively more capital-intensive goods than the other country. Nonetheless, EAC countries are largely comparable and trade similar products, including less capital-intensive products. Invariably, owing to the unrealistic assumptions of comparative advantage theory, Heckscher (1919) and Ohlin (1933) introduced the Hecksher-Ohlin (H-O) theory, which assumes that countries have identical technologies, identical and homothetic tastes, different factor endowments, and free trade, but not free factor movements. Thus, countries will export products that utilize their abundance factor endowments and import products that utilize their scarcity factor endowments. Again, countries export goods that use abundance factors more intensively. With freer trade, there will be a shift in resources toward the sectors that draw upon the abundance factor, and the value of total production increases. Some of the assumptions are held in question. For example, trade between countries is rarely free. Tariff and non-tariff barriers tend to constrain trade (Leyaro, 2021). Thus, the essence of regional integration, such as the East African Community, entails the removal of barriers to internal trade. Although these countries have substantially eliminated tariff barriers, they still maintain non-tariff barriers and sometimes introduce new ones (Leyaro, 2021). This may raise questions over the commitments of member countries to implement integration agreements and what that means for trade. Equally, while the EAC has been implementing the customs union since 2005, the corresponding trade effect of regional integrations is regularly questioned (Kagochi & Durmaz, 2018) and warrants revisiting using credible frameworks. Inspired by Newton’s law of gravitation force, the gravity model of international trade shows that bilateral trade between two countries is directly proportional to the product of the size of markets and inversely proportional to the mutual distance between the two countries (Capoani, 2023; Tinbergen, 1962). That is, large economies, often measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), are expected to trade more with each other (Capoani, 2023). The opposite is true for the smaller economies. Distance refers to the geographical distance between trading countries (Capoani, 2023). However, the gravity model of international trade has been expanded to cover other factors that may block bilateral trade between countries. Anderson & Van Wincoop (2004) refer to these as ‘trade costs’. In particular, two countries are likely to trade more if they share a border, language, and are colonized by the same country (Anderson & Van Wincoop, 2004; Capoani, 2023; Leyaro, 2021). While recognizing the high explanatory power of the gravity model, there are criticisms with regard to its theoretical foundation, COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 3 contending that the Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) model of international trade fails to provide adequate support. This suggests an incongruence between the H-O model and the gravity model. The assertion that the H-O model relies solely on comparative advantage and perfect competition, leading to the erroneous conclusion that gross trade flows equal net flows, is refuted. Moreover, the notion that the H-O model cannot result in factor price equalization between any two countries is also challenged. Deardorff (1984) highlighted the significance of bilateral trade patterns within the gravity model, a notion further supported by Jadhav & Ghosh (2023), who emphasized the model’s efficacy in explaining real-world trade data comprehensively. The gravity model has solidified its position as a fundamental pillar in the field of international trade, as evidenced by Feenstra et al. (2001) and Anderson & Van Wincoop (2004), who have made substantial contributions in support of the importance of the gravity model of international trade. Indeed, the empirical tests demonstrate alignment between the H-O theory and the gravity model of international trade (Ito et al., 2017; Sohn, 2005). Essentially, the gravity model stands as a cornerstone to understanding the dynamics of international trade, offering valuable insights into the relationship between trade flows, national incomes, and geographical distance. Thus, the gravity model can be used in examining the effect of customs union on the bilateral trade. 2.2. Empirical literature Numerous empirical studies have investigated the impact of customs unions on intra-regional trade in Africa and other regions. Research conducted in Africa has highlighted the trade creation effects of regional integration, such as the East African Community (EAC). Studies by Shinyekwa & Othieno (2013), Leyaro (2021), Buigut (2016), and Boiwo et al. (2015) demonstrated the positive effects of the EAC Customs Union on intra-EAC trade in the region, as well as in specific countries, such as Tanzania and Kenya. Further, Buigut (2016) found that the EAC Customs Union has a moderately positive effect on intra-EAC trade. Kagochi & Durmaz (2018) found some regional integrations to positively and significantly affect intra-regional trade, whereas others had negative and insignificant effects on intra-regional trade. Notably, Kagochi & Durmaz (2018)s’gravity model excluded the EAC. In addition, the effects of customs unions appear to vary according to region and industry. For example, Vivine (2019) found that the EAC Customs Union had no significant impact on the trade balance of Rwanda, whereas AkkoyunluWigley & Mihci (2006) observed negative effects of the customs union on the Turkish manufacturing industry. Varying effects of the customs unions may reflect the choice of measure of trade. For example, studies examining the effect of a customs union on net exports (Vivine, 2019) seem to find insignificant effect, whereas studies that examined the effect on exports or imports reported significant effects (Buigut, 2016; Leyaro, 2021). Further, the difference in policy focus of the member countries may render varying intra-regional trade effects of customs unions. For example, the effect of the EAC customs union on Tanzania and Rwanda may differ because the former’s national policy focuses on export promotion (United Republic of Tanzania, 2003), whereas the latter’s national policy focuses on broader development objectives (Republic of Rwanda, 2010). Such analysis is not well addressed in the extant literature. With respect to the model, many studies have found that the gravity model core and additional variables behave as expected. For example, in modeling bilateral trade in Romania, Vioric a(2012) found that the GDP of a partner country has a positive and significant effect on exports. Similar findings were reported by Alleyne & Lorde (2014) in their study of the trade performance of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members. Consistently, Oparanya et al. (2019) found that country size positively affects bilateral trade in the East African Community. Economic size also has a positive effect on trade between Kenya and Tanzania (Mahona & Mjema, 2014), and Eastern and Southern African countries (Nsabimana & Tirkaso, 2020). The effect of distance on bilateral trade between countries is consistently negative but significant in some studies (Alleyne & Lorde, 2014; Mahona & Mjema, 2014; Nsabimana & Tirkaso, 2020; Silva & Tenreyro, 2006) and insignificant in others (Buigut, 2012; Kabanda, 2014). Further, the existing literature present mixed findings on the effect of common language on bilateral trade. For example, common language was found to have an insignificant effect on bilateral trade in 4 P S. MAGAI AND M. ILOMO Rwanda and the EAC (Oparanya et al., 2019; Vivine, 2019), but demonstrated a significant positive effect on trade in CARICOM (Alleyne & Lorde, 2014) and regional integrations in sub-Saharan Africa (Kagochi & Durmaz, 2018). Studies have also indicated a positive effect of dealing with non-tariff measures, particularly in improving customs administration (Chimilila et al., 2014; Tosevska-Trpcevska, 2014). Magee (2008) and Carr ere (2006) include historical and time-constant factors and find them to influence the effect of regional integration on bilateral trade. For example, by including these factors, Carr ere (2006) found integration to significantly affect intra-regional trade at the expense of non-member countries. Thus, while there appears to be consensus regarding the impact of certain variables in the gravity model, the existing literature reveals diverse outcomes for other factors. These discrepancies emphasize the need for additional research to enhance our understanding of the intricate nature of intra-regional trade. It is important to highlight that few of the aforementioned studies differentiate the effect of customs unions on imports and exports, specifically in the context of the East African Community. Leyaro (2021) is one of such attempts, yet this study focused on exploring the impact of customs unions on overall intra-regional trade performance. The study did not include country level analyses, thereby missing the depth of the heterogeneity effect of customs unions, if any. Given this observation, an important question that requires investigation is whether the EAC customs union has a significant effect on intraregional exports, imports, or both and whether these effects are consistent across all member countries of the EAC. This study postulates that the EAC customs union has positive effect on intra-regional exports, imports, and total trade. 3. Methods 3.1. The gravity model This study employed the gravity model of international trade to examine the effect of EAC customs union on intra-regional trade performance. The gravity model of international trade mirrors Newton’s law by claiming that bilateral trade is directly proportional to the product of the size of the two economy (exporter and importer) and inversely related to the distance between them (Shepherd, 2016). The size of the economy is often measured in gross domestic product (GDP). Population (POP) serves as an alternative measure of size of economy or market. Mathematically, the basic gravity model of international trade is presented as follows; Traderp ¼GDPrxGDPp distrp (1) where, trade rp refers to value of exports from country r(the exporter) to country p(importer). trade rp may also represent the value of imports from country pto country r. Essentially, trade refers to bilateral trade between the two countries. In the context of this study, trade entails exports to or imports from EAC member countries, such as Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. In the analysis, we also used trade to refer to total trade, that is, the sum of exports and imports. GDP r and GDP p stand for GDP of country rand country p, respectively. dist rp refers to the distance between the two largest cities of the two countries. To ease the analysis, the model was transformed to form a linear equation by applying a natural logarithm. The transformed basic gravity model covering several years of trade relationship is given by Equation (2): lnTraderpt ¼b0þb1nGDPrt þb2lnGDPpt þb3lndistrp þert (2) We extended equation (2) to capture the variable of interest, customs union (cu). In addition, the extended model includes standard control variables for the gravity model of international trade. These reflect trade costs (Anderson & Van Wincoop, 2004), which include variables such as common language (lang), common border (border), and common colony (col). Further, the extended model controls for any effect specific to year (t) but common to all pairs of countries. This was done by including the yearly fixed effect (d t ), which facilitates the capture of common shocks that influence the effect of year specific factors on intra-regional trade performance. We included the effects specific to each pair of countries but common to all years (d rp ). The inclusion of yearly fixed effects and pair-specific effectswas inspired by Carr ere (2006). The final gravity model for this study is provided by equation (3). COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 5 lnTraderpt ¼b0þb1lnGDPrt þb2lnGDPpt þb3lndistrp þb4langrp þb5colrp þb6borderrp þb7curt þdtþdrp þert (3) 3.2. Data and operationalization of variables Table 1, below, presents the variables, their respective specific measures or definitions, and the data sources. The analysis covers 2002–2021. This resulted in a panel dataset with a maximum observation of 400. Custom union is measured as a dummy, taking the value 1 from 2005 and taking the value 0 otherwise for Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Customs union takes a value of 1 from 2007 and 0 otherwise for Burundi and Rwanda. This study attempts to establish a possible difference between the effect of customs unions (cu) on exports, imports, and total trade. Exports and imports data were extracted from the International Trade Center (ITC) Trademap, whereas GDP and population data were obtained from the UNCTADstat. Common language, common border, and common colony were measured as dummies and sourced from the Centre d’  Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). CEPII was also the source for distance data. More information on the measurement of the variables and the expected nature of relationship between the variable and trade are provided in Table 1, below. Notably, this study recognizes an anomaly in the data for the common language between Tanzania and Rwanda in the data source used in this study. Specifically, taking Tanzania as a reference country, the value for the common language was zero. However, the value is one if Rwanda is taken as the reference country. Thus, while recognizing the contribution of the CEPII to geographical data, one needs to carefully examine the data before use. Based on our contextual knowledge, this study uses data from Rwanda as a country of reference, that is, the value for official common language in the pair between Tanzania and Rwanda is 1. 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive data analysis The descriptive statistics presented in Table 2, below, show a consistently low standard deviation for all variables. This suggests that the majority of data points in these variables were close to the mean, indicating a desirable level of consistency for the analysis. Concerning the minimum and maximum values, the import variable represents the lower bound of the dataset with a value of 0.69, whereas the total trade variable exhibits the highest value of 14.07, indicating the upper limit of the dataset for all variables under consideration. 4.2. Results for gravity model Table 3, below, presents the results of the gravity model relating customs unions and intra-regional trade, and the incorporation of pair and yearly fixed effects. We also estimated the relationship using Table 1. Variables, definition, and sources of data. Variable Definitions Expected sign Source of data Exp r Value in US$ thousands N/A ITC Trademap Import r Value in US$ thousands N/A ITC Trademap GDP r Value in US$ at current price million þUNCTADstat GDP p Value in US$ at current price million þUNCTADstat POP r Absolute value in thousands þUNCTADstat POP p Absolute value in thousands þUNCTADstat Dist rp Distance between the biggest cities of the trading partner (in kilometres) –CEPII CU r 1 from 2005 (from 2007 for Rwanda and Burundi); 0, otherwise þCreated based on information in the EAC website lang 1 for countries sharing an official language; 0, otherwise þCEPII border 1 for countries sharing the border; 0, otherwise þCEPII col 1 for country pairs having a common colonizer post 1945 þCEPII Source: Authors’compilation. 6 P S. MAGAI AND M. ILOMO the Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) models for comparison reason. The OLS results are not included in this manuscript. Essentially, the fixed effects models were found to be stronger than the OLS model results. As shown in the table, the variable of interest, cu, has positive signs, consistent with expectations. However, the effect of customs union on intra-regional exports is insignificant (see Panels (2) and (3)). Similarly, customs union has an insignificant effect on intra-regional imports (see Panels (5) and (6)). The effect of customs union on intra-regional total trade is also insignificant (see Panel (7)). The effect of customs unions on intra-regional exports, imports, and total trade is consistently insignificant, despite including standard variables in the gravity model, such as GDP of the reporter, GDP of partner, and distance between reporter and partner. The models also controlled for other trade cost variables, such as common language, common colony, and common border, yet yielded an insignificant effect of customs union on intra-regional trade. The partner’s GDP exhibits the expected sign, but its effect on intra-regional exports, imports, and total trade is consistently insignificant (see Table 3, above). Additionally, the reporter’s GDP has a positive and insignificant effect on intra-regional exports and imports. The results show that the reporter’s GDP has a negative and insignificant effect on intra-regional total trade. Contrary to expectations, distance positively affected intra-regional exports, imports, and total trade. Nonetheless, the effect was consistently insignificant. The effect of the common language is positive and significant on intra-regional exports, but positive and insignificant for intra-regional imports, and negative and insignificant for intraregional total trade. Common colony has an insignificant and negative effect on intra-regional exports, whereas its effect on intra-regional imports and total trade is positive but insignificant. Further, the Table 2. Summary statistics of the key variables. S/N Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max 1 lexp 398 10.25 1.98 4.28 13.66 2 limport 395 9.52 2.61 .69 13.62 3 ltotrade 399 11.23 1.60 4.19 14.07 4 lgdp_rep 400 9.49 1.33 6.39 11.61 5 lgdp_part 400 9.49 1.33 6.39 11.61 6 lpop_rep 400 10.06 .72 8.80 11.06 7 lpop_part 400 10.06 .72 8.80 11.06 8 ldist 400 6.47 .56 5.19 7.07 9 lang 400 .70 .46 0 1 10 col 400 .40 .49 0 1 11 border 400 .70 .46 0 1 12 eac_cu 400 .78 .41 0 1 Source: Authors’calculation. Table 3. Gravity equation results (dependent variable: exports, imports, total trade). (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) VARIABLES lexp lexp Lexp limport limport limport ltotrade lgdp_rep 0.188 0.219 0.219 0.695 0.718 0.718 −0.102 (0.566) (0.571) (0.571) (0.798) (0.806) (0.806) (0.527) lgdp_part 0.309 0.339 0.339 0.970 0.992 0.992 0.704 (0.565) (0.571) (0.571) (0.805) (0.812) (0.812) (0.527) ldist 1.564 1.436 2.151 0.477 0.383 0.383 1.385 (1.747) (1.773) (1.745) (2.482) (2.519) (2.519) (1.637) lang 3.5653.735 −1.670 (2.045) (2.447) (1.592) col −1.851 0.0640 2.609 (3.373) (2.758) (1.798) border 1.806 −3.981 −2.824 (2.188) (3.446) (1.399) eac_cu 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.100 0.154 (0.310) (0.310) (0.438) (0.438) (0.287) Constant −4.266 −4.037 −12.22 −8.691−8.523 −8.342 −1.562 (3.631) (3.673) (5.153) (5.163) (5.222) (6.189) (6.006) Observations 398 398 398 395 395 395 399 R-squared 0.838 0.838 0.838 0.814 0.814 0.814 0.788 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. p<0.01. p<0.05. p<0.1. Source: Authors’calculation. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 7