November 2013 / No 7

Macroeconomics and Development

Euro-Med
Growth
and Trade
Introduction
Integration:
can we talk of a
This paper revisits the debate on Euro-
Mediterranean integration to reassess its observed
and expected impact on the economic growth of
cost of the non-
the South and East Mediterranean countries
(SEMCs).

Since the 1990s, the SEMCs and the European

Mediterranean?
Union (EU) have been engaged in a process of
trade liberalisation under the Barcelona
Agreements, which were meant to promote Emmanuel Comolet (comolete@afd.fr),
economic convergence between the two shores of Nicole Madariaga (madariagan@afd.fr)
the Mediterranean through the creation of a vast Mihoub Mezouaghi (mezouaghim@afd.fr)
free trade area. As a first step, Euro-Med bilateral
trade agreements put in place a gradual and Economists at the Agence Franaise
asymmetrical dismantling of tariff barriers for de Dveloppement
SEMC industrial exports to the EU (goods that
already enjoyed preferential access to European
markets).

The broadly accepted results of this process are
somewhat mixed (Jarreau, 2011). Although the
opening up of markets has helped to introduce
macroeconomic discipline (mainly regarding
inflation and budget deficits), it has not gone
hand in hand with an upward climb of the SEMCs
growth paths. Their virtually unchanged export
structure, the high concentration and rigidity of
their production apparatus are symptomatic of a
structural weakness regarding their competitiveness.
The fragmentation of the South Mediterranean
markets, continued trade protection of services
and agricultural products, persistent economic
rents, the size of the public sector, red tape and
cumbersome regulations are all constraints to a
virtuous Euro-Mediterranean integration that
would drive economic growth. Would greater
trade openness, chiefly through better resource
allocation and a reduction in economic rents, be
beneficial?
 Table of contents
In this sense, there would be a cost of the non-
Mediterranean or, in other words, an opportunity cost
to not completing the liberalisation of the regional 1 / EURO-MED TRADE LIBERALISATION
trade, which would thus cause a loss of potential economic HAD LIMITED MACROECONOMIC AND
growth for each member country [ 1]. SECTORAL IMPACT DURING THE 2000S

This hypothesis, very widely circulated by the inter- 1.1. The effects on economic growth
national institutions and deeply embedded in the
1.2. Sectoral effects
economic policies of the SEMCs, is nonetheless
debatable. A review of the historic trends of trade between 1.3. Euro-Med trade relations weakened
the SEMCs and European countries and the long-run by globalisation
simulation of their future trends seem to show that this
cost of the non-Mediterranean is relatively low.
2 / A DEEPENING OF EURO-MED TRADE
Drawing on innovative empirical research and partnered LIBERALISATION ALONE WILL NOT
by the Centre dEtudes Prospectives et dInformations INCREASE THE SEMCS GROWTH
Internationales (CEPII Center for International POTENTIAL
Prospective Studies), in the first section of this paper, 2.1. Choice of trade liberalisation scenarios
we will show that the logic of SEMC integration into
2.2. Limited growth potential
global trade takes precedence over that of their
regional integration, leading to a dilution of the Euro- 2.3. Uneven effects on economic diversification
Mediterranean link. In the second section, we use four 2.4. Marginal impact of SEMC regional integration
liberalisation scenarios to underline how trade open-
ness would have a weak macroeconomic and sectoral
impact. To conclude, in the final section, we will identify 3 / CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
a number of lessons to be learnt and question the
3.1. The cost of the non-Mediterranean turns
growth policies of the SEMCs.
out to be less than expected
3.2. The need to rehabilitate the States role
3.3. Redefining long-run growth levers

APPENDIX
LIBERALISATION SCENARIOS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES

[1] Analogy to the cost of the non-Maghreb, which according to World Bank studies would have a real opportunity cost leading to a loss of 1 to 2 percentage
points of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for each country.

2 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

1 / Euro-Med trade liberalisation has had
limited macroeconomic and sectoral
impact during the 2000s

Likewise, imports saw a substantial rise, but to a lesser

1.1. The effects on economic growth
The aggregate SEMC trade flows with the EU increased
very sharply between 1995 and 2008, particularly
from 2002 to 2008. The rise is seen both for exports
and imports. Export values to the EU more than tripled
in five of the eight countries considered (cf. Figure 1).
extent (cf. Figure 2). The global crisis nonetheless
interrupted this dynamic from 2008, creating a
reverse trend. The slowdown of growth in the
European countries weighed heavily on exports from
the SEMCs and some countries such as Algeria,
Turkey and Egypt saw their goods exports fall back to
their 2005 level.

Figure 1 Figure 2

Export values to EU25 (base 100 in 1995) Import values to EU25 (base 100 in 1995)

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Tunisia Egypt Tunisia Egypt

Morocco Algeria Morocco Algeria
Israel Lebanon Israel Lebanon
Jordan Turkey Jordan Turkey

Source: computations based on data from the World Trade Database, BACI. Source: computations based on BACI data.

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 3
 However, the uptrend over the whole period is to a
large extent due to the increase in commodity prices,
as the changes in volume are much more modest. [ 2]
An analysis of market share (in value) in the SEMCs
and in the EU also puts the apparent trade dynamic
between the two regions into sharper perspective.
On one side, SEMC market share in the EU, which
does not exceed 5%, has remained at the same level
since 1995 (cf. Figure 3). At the same time, some
emerging countries have deepened their access to the
European market, doubling if not tripling their market
share over the same period. On the other side,
although the EU remains by far the Mediterraneans
biggest partner with 45% market share in 2009, it has
lost 10 percentage points since 1995 (cf. Figure 4).
This fall-off has been to the advantage of emerging
countries like China and Russia, whose market share
in the decade starting in 2000 exceeded that of the
Mediterranean countries in their intra-SEMC trade
(respectively 9.4% et 4.8%, against 3.5% of their
imports in 2009).

Figure 3 Figure 4

Market share in EU25 (%) Market share in the SEMCs (%)

30 30 80
25 25 70
60
20 20
50
15 15 40

10 10 30
20
5 5
10
0 0 0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Turkey MED 7
Turkey MED 7
Russia China
Russia China
Japon United States
Japon United States
EU (right scale)

Source: computations based on BACI data. Source: computations based on BACI data.

The trends in market shares indicate that the Euro-
Med trade liberalisation has not had the expected
results on trade between the two regions. Quite the
opposite, in fact. Not only did their respective market
shares not improve, but they also tended to decline
due to the effect of stronger international competition
from emerging countries and countries with low
labour costs. Geographical proximity does not seem
to have had any decisive impact on Euro-
Mediterranean trade integration.
Similarly, the positive impact of trade openness on
the SEMCs economic growth failed to materialise, as
is shown by the absence of economic convergence
with the European countries. The only country that
seems to have engaged on a convergence path narrowing
the gap between their GDP per capita and that of the
EU since the early 2000s (cf. Figure 5) is Turkey and,
to a lesser extent, Tunisia. This evolution is nonethe-
less limited as the Turkish and Tunisian GDPs per
capita amounted to barely 50% and 30% respectively

[2] Export and import volumes stagnated in most cases and show a significant rise only for Algeria and Turkey (a doubling of trade over the period).

4 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 1/ Euro-Med trade liberalisation has had limited macroeconomic
and sectoral impact during the 2000s

of European GDP per capita in 2011. The other the end of the period (cf. Figure 6). Their GDP per
SEMCs except for Lebanon experienced no capita remained under 30% of European GDP per
convergence, despite a slight reduction in the gaps at capita.

Figure 5 Figure 6

GDP/pc PPP* of the Med countries (2005 GDP/pc PPP of the Med countries (2005
constant USD, in % of the average GDP/pc of constant USD, in % of the average GDP/pc of
EU25) EU25)

50
50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Lebanon Jordania
Turkey Tunisia
Algeria Morocco
Egypt

* PPP: Purchasing power parity.

Source: WDI, authors computations. Source: WDI, authors computations.

1.2. Sectoral effects
A first look at the changes in SEMC market shares in
the EU by sector (cf. Figure 7) and of the EUs in the
SEMCs (cf. Figure 8) shows that the SEMCs were able
to consolidate their positions in some export sectors
from 1995 onward. Conversely, the EUs market
shares in the SEMCs declined over the period in all
sectors of activity.
For the SEMCs, the sectors that consolidated their
export market shares are capital goods, agricultural
products and other manufactured products. Yet, the
market share increase in these three sectors was not
sufficient to offset the sharp drop observed in the
textile sector. SEMC textile exports to the EU were
adversely affected by competition from Asia, parti-
cularly China, Pakistan and Bangladesh following the
removal of the Multi-fibre Arrangement in 2005
(World Bank, 2006a). Overall, SEMC market share in
the EU was down in the industrial sector taken as a
whole. This trend indicates, at the very least, the
industrialisation process is losing impetus, which
translates into a loss of competitiveness in their tradi-
tional specialisations and the inability to redeploy
their comparative advantages in new industries.

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 5
 Figure 7 Figure 8

SEMC market share in EU25, by sector (%) EU25 market share in the SEMCs, by sector (%)

70
25
60
20
50
15 40

10 30
20
5
10
0
0
Other Metal Capital
Textiles Agriculture Mining Capital Other Metal
Manuf. products goods Textiles Agriculture Mining
goods Manuf. prod.

1995 1995
2002 2002
2009 2009

Note: The sectors are broken down as follows: textiles, capital goods, metal products, other manufacturing products (agri-food products, chemicals, plastics, wood
products, leather), mining, agriculture.

Source: computations based on BACI data. Source: computations based on BACI data.

An analysis of the determinants of the trade flows
helps to explain the decline of SEMC shares in the EU
market. The CEPII-AFD study (2012) uses a gravity
model based on Baier and Bergstrand (2009) to analyse
the impact of trade agreements between the SEMCs
and the EU between 2001 and 2007 (cf. Box 1). This
econometric tool is widely used in the economic litera-
ture to analyse the determinants of bilateral trade. A
first original contribution of this study was to dis -
aggregate the trade into three main sectors (agricul-
tural, agri-food distinct from the other branches of
the industry and manufacturing) so as to reveal the
differentiated sectoral effects.

6 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 1/ Euro-Med trade liberalisation has had limited macroeconomic
and sectoral impact during the 2000s

Box 1 The gravity model

The gravity model or equation is an empirical relationship that explains trade between two countries by their
economic mass and the distance separating them, by analogy with Newtons universal law of gravity. This
empirical relationship is very widely used for international trade as it provides some of the most stable and
robust econometric results.
In its augmented version, the gravity model may also include barriers to trade other than geographical dis-
tance. Apart from the bilateral barriers (such as customs barriers) affecting bilateral trade, Anderson and van
Wincoop (2003) have also identified what they call multilateral resistances to trade, which correspond to
barriers vis--vis the rest of the world and which are experienced by every country. The underlying idea is that
the lower the bilateral costs and the higher the opportunity cost of trading with the rest of the world, the
more two countries would trade with each other. Thus two countries experiencing high resistance to trade
with the rest of the world will trade more between themselves than will those countries with better access to
the rest of the world. In other words, the aim is to capture the possible diversion effects on the trade between
two countries resulting from the trade agreements that either country has signed with the rest of the world.
Baier and Bergstrand (2009) simplify the inclusion of the multilateral barriers identified by Anderson and Van
Wincoop by proposing an original and straightforward econometric approach. Using this simplified approach,
the CEPII-AFD study (2012) estimates a gravity equation augmented by variables measuring tariff barriers at
both bilateral and multilateral levels. We will see below that multilateral tariff barriers can have a strong
impact on SEMC bilateral trade with the EU.

The results show that, overall, the Euro-Med trade
openness policies (measured by the lowering of bilateral
barriers between the EU and the SEMCs) had little
effect on their bilateral trade flows between 2001 and
2007. A more nuanced picture of this finding is none-
theless provided by a sectoral breakdown of their
trade patterns. In fact, trade liberalisation between
the two regions brought greater benefit to exports
from the agricultural and agri-food sectors than those
from the manufacturing sector (cf. Figure 9). This
disparity can be largely explained by the fact that the
trade openness effects on the manufacturing sector
mainly happened prior to and at the very beginning
of the period analysed. Thus from 2001 to 2007,
export growth in the manufacturing sector did not
exceed 5%, and was even negative in the case of
Turkey (-1%).

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 7
 Figure 9 Figure 10

Net change in exports from SEMCs to EU25, Net change in imports to SEMCs from EU25,
20012007 (%) 20012007 (%)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10
- 41,4 %
-20 -20
Tunisia

Morocco

Jordan

Lebanon

Egypt

Algeria

Israel

Turkey

Tunisia

Morocco

Jordan

Lebanon

Egypt

Algeria

Israel

Turkey
Agriculture Agriculture
Agri-food Agri-food
Manufacturing Manufacturing

Note: the estimated net changes subsequent to the lowering of tariff barriers between 2001 and 2007.

Source: CEPII-AFD (2012). Source: CEPII-AFD (2012).

On the other hand, export growth in the agricultural
sector, and even more in the agri-food sector was
substantial. The effects on the agri-food sector are
particularly homogeneous: except for Tunisia, whose
exports dropped by 10%, all the SEMCs saw their
agri-food exports rise, up to 14% in Lebanon and 27%
in Jordan. The impact of openness on agricultural
exports generally benefited the SEMCs, but the
results are very heterogeneous: certainly, agricultural
exports went up by 11% in Lebanon and 13% in Egypt
but, at the same time, they fell by 15% in Morocco
and 6% in Jordan. These mixed effects are mainly
explained by the fact that EU tariff reductions depend
on the country and the product. In fact, there were
still numerous exceptions to tariff reductions in force
in the agricultural sector, since the preferential
agreements for agriculture covering the whole of the
Euro-Mediterranean area had not yet been negotiated
or signed.
On the other hand, imports from the EU to the
SEMCs increased very little overall (cf. Figure 10),
with the exception of Morocco (+18%) and Algeria
(+12%) in the manufacturing sector, and Tunisia
(+8%) in the agricultural sector. EU exports seem to
have suffered from trade diversions linked to the
trade agreements signed between the SEMCs and
third countries, either on a bilateral basis (with the
United States) or within a regional framework
( Greater Arab Free Trade Agreement GAFTA and
the Agadir Agreement).

8 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 1/ Euro-Med trade liberalisation has had limited macroeconomic
and sectoral impact during the 2000s

Euro-Med trade relations weakened third countries is integrated, the net change in the
1.3. by globalisation trade of manufactured products is shown to have
decreased.

As we mentioned in Box 1, an original contribution of

this study is the inclusion of multilateral resistance
(Anderson and van Wincoop, 2003). Trade agreements Figure 11
with other countries or groups of countries may
reduce the impact of the Euro-Med agreements on
bilateral trade between the SEMCs and the EU due to Direct and indirect effects for the SEMC
a trade diversion effect. They may also produce the manufacturing sector from 2001 to 2007 (%)
opposite effect and intensify trade by creating higher
trade flows. This would be the case, for example, if Exports to EU25 Imports from EU25
tariff barriers between the EU and Mexico were reduced 80
to a lesser extent than those between Morocco and 60
the EU. The EU-Mexico agreement could then indirect - 40
ly boost the level of Moroccos exports to the EU, 20
over and above the direct effect of the Morocco-EU 0
agreement. -20
-40
Agreements with third countries can thus generate -60
negative or positive externalities. Bensassi et al. (2012)
Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey
Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey
show that the level of trade created between trading
partners may be halved or even cancelled out by
indirect effects. In this respect, two types of effects
need to be measured: (i) direct effects directly linked Direct
to the bilateral trade agreements between the SEMCs
Indirect
and the EU, and (ii) the indirect effects linked to
agreements with other trading partners. The sum of
direct and indirect effects makes it possible to
measure the net effects of trade liberalisation.
Source : CEPII-AFD (2012).
The results of the study show that the indirect
effects of agreements recently signed with partners
outside the Euro-Med region have very often offset In the agricultural and agri-food sectors, the effects
the effects of SEMC-EU bilateral agreements. This is are more mixed. Figure 12 shows that, in the agricul-
particularly visible in the manufacturing sector where tural sector, the net effects on SEMC agricultural
the net effects of Euro-Med trade openness were exports are primarily due to significant positive
weak for two reasons. Firstly, the effect of trade (Lebanon, Egypt) or negative (Morocco, Jordan)
liberalisation faded out since it mainly occurred at the effects of EU tariff changes over the 20012007
beginning of the period, generating limited direct and period: Lebanon and Egypt are the only countries in
indirect effects with respect to SEMC exports to the the Euro-Med area to have benefited from EU tariff
EU (cf. Figure 11). Moreover, when the direct effects reductions in this sector (-3% on average); Morocco
were stronger for EU exports to the SEMCs, the and Jordan, on the contrary, saw substantial increases
indirect effects almost entirely cancelled out the gains in agricultural tariff barriers imposed on them by the
of trade openness due to trade diversion resulting from EU (on average +7% and +4% respectively).
the SMECs other trading partners, and doubt less to Moreover, apart from Turkey, agreements signed by
the declining competitiveness of European exporters. the EU with non-Euro-Med partners had an overall
Overall, when the impact of trade agreements with positive impact on SEMC exports, due to the EUs

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 9
 relative increases in its trade protection barriers vis-- In the agri-food sector, the differentiated direct and
vis its other trading partners: these either partially indirect effects on SEMC exports to the EU are similar
offset the direct negative effects (Tunisia, Morocco, to those observed in the agricultural sector (cf. Figure
Jordan), or reinforced the positive effects (Lebanon, 13), except that the net effects (direct and indirect)
Egypt). In addition, the agreements with non-Euro- are higher overall (Graphs 9 and 10): net creation of
Med countries had an amplifying effect on SEMC exports in almost all the countries, except Tunisia, [ 3]
exports to the EU, particularly in the case of Lebanon on average account for 9.8% of total agri-food
and Egypt. Conversely, the indirect effects on EU exports over the 20012007 period, compared to
exports to the SEMCs systematically evolved in the 7.4% in the agricultural sector. [4] The most pronounced
opposite direction to the direct effects, revealing that increases can be explained by the direct conse-
the competitiveness brought into play by the agree- quences of the EUs large tariff reductions vis--vis
ments signed between SEMCs and third countries had Jordan (-12% on average), Lebanon (-6%), Egypt and
an impact on EU exports. Certainly the direct effects Algeria (-3%). More significantly, agri-food exports
of the Euro-Med agreements are globally positive from Morocco, Turkey and Israel, impacted by modest
(except those with Turkey and Israel). However, the EU tariff increases (less that 2% on average), saw an
agreements concluded with non-Euro-Med partners overall rise between 2001 and 2007 resulting from a
have weakened (Tunisia, Algeria), if not cancelled out differential effect of tariff changes vis--vis the EUs
(Morocco, Egypt) the direct effects of the bilateral other trading partners (cf. Figure 13).
Euro-Med agreements.

Figure 12 Figure 13

Direct and indirect effects for the SEMC Direct and indirect effects for the SEMC
agricultural sector from 2001 to 2007 (%) agri-food sector from 2001 to 2007 (%)

Exports to EU25 Imports from EU25

Exports to EU25 Imports from EU25
40 80
30 60
20 40
10 20
0 0
-10 -20
-20 -40
-30 -60
-40 -80
-50
Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey

Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey
Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey
Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt
Algeria
Israel
Turkey

Indirect Indirect

Direct Direct

Source : CEPII-AFD (2012). Source : CEPII-AFD (2012).

[3] Tunisia has been subject to EU tariff increases in the agri-food sector that are much higher than those in the agricultural or manufacturing sectors.
[4] This second average includes Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt and Israel, which are the only countries to have seen a net increase of their agricultural exports.

10 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 2/ A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation alone will not increase
the SEMCs growth potential
Similarly, although Tunisian exports suffered from the
direct effects of a substantial tariff rise, these were
partly offset by the tariff increases vis--vis the EUs
other trading partners.
The indirect effects of agreements signed with non-
Euro-Med countries translate into a drop in EU
exports to the SEMCs despite large tariff reductions
granted by the latter.
This analysis of direct and indirect gains highlights the
importance of the multilateral dimension in the Euro-
Med trade relations. Although the direct effects of
tariff changes are essential, notably in the agricultural
and agri-food sectors, the effects of Euro-Med inte-
gration cannot be measured without taking into
account the agreements signed by each of the parties
with third countries. Thus, looking more closely at
SEMC exports to the EU, the effects of tariff reductions
applied to the SEMCs were sometimes amplified by
the less favourable changes in EU tariffs vis--vis third
2/A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation
alone will not increase the SEMCs growth
potential
2.1. Choice of trade liberalisation scenarios
In this second section, we present the results of a
simulation of deepening trade liberalisation between
the two shores of the Mediterranean (Euro-Med
openness) and between the SEMCs (Med-Med
openness) to assess its potential impact on long-run
economic growth.
/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? /
countries (this is the case for Lebanon, Egypt and
Algeria). But, above all, some countries such as
Tunisia and Morocco, and even more so Israel and
Turkey, were able to offset direct losses linked to EU
tariff increases in the agricultural and agri-food sectors,
thanks to these indirect effects.
These findings show that the multilateral trade ties of
both partner regions have a significant impact on
Euro-Med trade. Bensassi et al. (2012) thus show that
a tariff reduction between two partner countries only
brings gains over time since the partner countries
protect themselves from competition ( i.e. indirect
effects) by regularly renegotiating new preferential
trade agreements. Given the importance of the indi-
rect effects on Euro-Mediterranean trade, all of the
agreements concluded by the EU and the SEMCs
must be taken into account to a greater degree in the
framework of bilateral negotiations to ensure that
they are adapted to regional integration.
Here, the impact of trade policies is analysed using a
computable general equilibrium model so as to
reconstitute, following a shock to relative prices, not
only intersectoral relations at country level, but also
at aggregate level (cf. Box 2). A change in relative
prices subsequent to a lowering of tariff barriers
modifies not only the allocation of factors of production
between the different sectors but also, by extension,
the countrys macroeconomic performance.
11
 Box 2 Use of the MIRAGE model

With a general equilibrium model, all interactions between the goods and services markets as well as the
factors of production in each country can be taken into account in order to assess the effects of trade open-
ness on welfare, production and trade. The dynamic is determined by the change in exogenous variables
(population trends, labour supply, natural resources, growth of total factor productivity) and by the endoge-
nous accumulation of capital. To represent a countrys economic structure, this type of model uses detailed
data from a double-entry accounting framework known as the Social Accounting Matrix.
The model used in this study is the MIRAGE model developed by the CEPII. This is a multi-sector and multi-
country model (34 sectors and 23 countries/regions). The SEMCs are examined in the following way: Egypt,
Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Algeria/Libya, Rest of the Middle East. Some of these countries have been aggre-
gated on account of the statistical limits of the data source, Global Trade Analyses Project (GTAP), used to
calibrate the model. The results for those countries analysed individually are thus more robust.
The MIRAGE model is calibrated using the degree of trade openness observed in 2004, with projections up
to 2025. In other words, the projections are based on the tariff levels observed for the baseline year 2004.
Four trade openness scenarios, presented below, are compared to a baseline scenario that assumes an
unchanged situation in trade relations between the EU and the SEMCs, and among the SEMCs. EU tariff
barriers to SEMC industrial sectors imports are close to 0 in 2004. They are over 20%, and remain high, in
the agricultural and agri-food sectors. Services are to a large extent highly protected.
The four scenarios make it possible to assess the impact of a deepened trade openness in the main economic
sectors (industry, agriculture and services). The effects of trade liberalisation mainly stem from gains in the
allocation of resources, the accumulation of capital, terms of trade and welfare. [ 5]

With regard to political and social constraints, four
credible reference scenarios of liberalisation have
been chosen: [ 6]
(i) scenario 1 Euro-Med liberalisation: complete
Euro-Med trade liberalisation for industrial
goods and partial liberalisation for agricultural
products (excluding sensitive products); [ 7]
(ii) scenario 2 Euro-Med + Med-Med liberalisation:
scenario (i) + partial Med-Med trade liberalisation
for industrial goods and agricultural products
(excluding sensitive products);
(iii) scenario 3 liberalisation of services: scenario
(ii) + partial Euro-Med liberalisation for services;
(iv) scenario 4 multilateral liberalisation: scenario
(iii) + complete liberalisation for goods with third
countries.
It should be pointed out that this modelling frame-
work has two kinds of limits. Firstly, the scarcity of
statistical data, their unreliability (notably for services)
and the volume of informal trade among the SEMCs
made it necessary to simplify the model specification.
The main consequence of these statistical constraints
was that the projection scenarios necessarily referenced
2004 as the baseline year, as this corresponded to the
data of the most recent social accounting matrix.
Secondly, the intrinsic limits of the MIRAGE model,
owing to its specification assumptions, mean that the
results need to be qualified. One can consider that
static gains are overestimated due to the assumptions
made on the competitive nature of the markets,
which are considered to be perfect and undistorted [ 8]
(i.e. optimal reallocation of resources and adjustments
driven by relative prices). Additionally, non-tariff barriers,
which may increase following a reduction of tariffs, are
not adequately captured by the model. On the other

[5] Cf. CEPII-AFD (2012) for details on methodology.

[6] We have chosen these four reference scenarios out of fourteen simulated liberalisation scenarios (cf. Appendix 1). These scenarios are sequentially tested.
[7] The incorporation of a list of sensitive products, for which the initial level of protection remains unchanged, is due to the high probability that tariff barriers
will be maintained by national authorities for highly protected sectors (for economic, social or political reasons).
[8] With respect to the labour market, this assumption seems particularly questionable given the regions very high unemployment rates.

12 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 2/ A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation alone will not increase
the SEMCs growth potential

hand, dynamic trade gains (stemming from increases
induced by productivity, technology exchanges or
learning effects) are underestimated, given that techno-
logy is treated as an exogenous variable (the impact in
terms of product varieties and to a selection of the
most productive enterprises is not estimated, which
also leads to a underestimation of gains).
In fact, computable general equilibrium models, by
construction, find a positive correlation between the
economic gains and the degree of trade openness,
showing that multilateral liberalisation is always the
most favourable option. In this sense, an analysis may
be open to bias when it rests on the formulation of a
discourse stating that market opening would necessa-
rily produce the strongest impacts regardless of other
realities that may influence the behaviour of public
and private actors. The results must be interpreted
with all other things being equal and in a context of
perfect market equilibrium; this thus calls for a
degree of caution and must not preclude analysis of
the institutional determinants of the structural and
sectoral dynamics of SEMC economies.
share in the European countries foreign trade. Apart
from the oil-producing countries (Algeria and Libya),
imports would also increase significantly, but gene-
rally to a lesser extent, than exports, which would
have a positive impact on their balance of payments.
Nonetheless, given the trade structure, which would
remain unchanged, these countries would continue to
be highly vulnerable to external shocks (mainly
through commodity prices).
Although SEMC export gains would be significant
overall, it should be pointed out that those specifi-
cally due to exports to European markets would
represent a smaller share, except in the case of
Tunisia. In fact, export gains would be markedly
higher vis--vis third countries with which the SEMCs
have concluded trade agreements, thus reinforcing
the diversion effect (and the weakening of the Euro-
Med relationship [ 9]) observed in the pre-2004 period.
Figure 14
Changes of total exports between 2004 and
2025 compared to the baseline scenario (%)

2.2. A limited growth potential

20

16
While market opening between the SEMCs and the
12
EU in the pre-2004 period was limited to industrial
goods and implemented asymmetrically (European 8
markets being already largely open to industrial goods 4
exports from the SEMCs), the liberalisation scenarios 0
envisage reciprocal openness for agricultural products
-4
and for services.
Tunisia Egypt Morocco Turkey Algria Rest EU
Such trade openness would translate into an increase Libya of
Middle East
in trade. The simulations show that four countries
would see a significant rise in their exports compared
to the baseline scenario, which simulates a halt in the S1 S2 S3 S4
trade liberalisation process post-2004 (cf. Figure 14):
Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey. Export earnings
would be more pronounced in the agricultural and
Note: the results for the ROME group of countries are not significant given the groups
agri-food sectors. On the EU side, the knock-on effect heterogeneous and composite character.
on EU exports would be weaker owing to the relati-
vely small size of the SEMC markets and their limited Source : CEPII-AFD (2012).

[9] Meaning that the relations with non-Euro-Med partners have diluted the trade ties between the SEMCs and the EU.

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 13
 Several factors may help to explain why the regionali-
sation dynamics remain weak despite the expected
gains due to proximity. On the one hand, maintaining
high non-tariff barriers which are not taken into
account here would very strongly impact exports to
European markets. On the other hand, the lack of
productive foreign direct investment in the SEMCs
limits the transfer of technology and capital from the
EU. The lack of production integration through industrial
subcontracting affects the trade integration dynamic,
marked by high inertia in the goods and services trade
structure.
Beyond these trade logics, the simulation also showed
that Euro-Med integration is strongly constrained by
the structural and institutional limits that typify the
SEMC economies. In this respect, a deeper regional
trade liberalisation would not translate into significant
gains in terms of economic growth (cf. Table 1).

Table 1 GDP growth between 2004 and 2025 compared to the baseline scenario (%)

Algeria Rest of
Scenarios Egypt Morocco Tunisia Turkey EU
Libya Middle East

S1 -0,54 -0,58 -0,78 1,25 -0,34 -0,09 0,05

(real)

S2 -1,85 -0,05 -1,08 2,10 0,86 -0,12 0,04

GDP

S3 -1,78 0,47 -0,68 2,59 1,23 0,11 0,09

S4 -3,39 -0,16 -0,49 1,77 1,89 -0,53 -0,10
S1 -0,06 0,07 0,08 0,80 0,05 0,00 0,00
(volume)

S2 -0,06 0,14 0,31 1,45 0,19 0,01 0,00

GDP

S3 0,00 0,34 0,47 1,72 0,34 0,17 0,04

S4 0,22 1,28 1,65 2,98 0,73 0,13 -0,01

Source : CEPII-AFD (2012).

In fact, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Libya would
record modest GDP gains, and even in some cases a
GDP loss, [ 10] in the three reference scenarios with a
higher degree of regional trade integration. Only
Tunisia, and to a lesser extent Turkey, would benefit
from a stronger knock-on effect on economic growth,
both for GDP in value and in volume. Incidentally, the
pronounced difference between the effects on
constant price GDP and those on current price GDP
(notably for Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Libya) is
explained mainly by a more marked deterioration in
terms of trade (an adverse differential between the
price of exported goods and the price of imported
goods).
The consequences of trade liberalisation vary depen-
ding on the SEMC. For oil-importing countries, the
liberalisation of services would generate a gain in
volume GDP proportionally higher than the liberalisa-
tion of agricultural products in Egypt and Turkey. In
Morocco and Tunisia, the contribution of agricultural
activities would on the other hand be relatively
higher. The varyingly diversified initial production
structure in these countries would lead to more effi-
cient reallocation of resources and higher producti-
vity gains, indicating a relatively stronger potential for
growth in the agricultural, agri-foods and services
sectors than in the industrial sector. Conversely, the
oil-producing countries, whose economies are highly
concentrated, would not benefit from growth gains in
any of the liberalisation scenarios.

[10] Meaning that the relations with non-Euro-Med partners have diluted the trade ties between the SEMCs and the EU.

14 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 2/ A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation alone will not increase
the SEMCs growth potential

added value in one sector was not to the detriment

Mixed effects on economic
2.3. diversification
These results are closely related to the effect of libe-
ralisation on production (re)allocation and sectoral
recomposition.
Three types of trajectory can be identified (cf. Table 2):
(i) Countries that appear to reallocate their
production: Tunisia would experience a considerable
reallocation with a shift from its production of
primary products to agriculture, particularly agri-
food, and to industry and services. This pheno-
menon of reallocating agricultural and primary
products to industry is also seen in Morocco, but
remains marginal in that the decrease observed in
the agricultural and primary sectors does not
translate into a corresponding increase of added
value in the industrial sector. The low level of
reallocation in Morocco is mainly due to the
negative impact of preferential treatment being
withdrawn.
(ii) Countries whose production could diversify with
trade liberalisation, as long as the increase in
of another: added value in Turkey would increase
particularly in industry and services, and stagnate
in the primary and agricultural sectors. In Egypt,
added value in the agricultural and industrial
sectors would increase equally, while added value
would remain stable in the other sectors of the
economy. This phenomenon of an overall
increase in added value may reflect the diversifi-
cation of these economies, potentially leading to
productivity gains that are higher in Turkey than
in Egypt, given the productive specialisations that
would appear after an opening up of trade.
(iii) Deindustrialising countries: Algeria and Libya
would engage in deindustrialisation and focus on
exploiting primary resources (mainly hydrocarbons).
Moreover, liberalisation scenarios would produce
differentiated sectoral effects. Stronger Euro-
Med regional integration would lead to greater
agricultural specialisation in Tunisia and Egypt,
while weakening that of Morocco (undoubtedly
as it would no longer enjoy the preferential
advantage of privileged access to European markets,
and would record much lower productivity gains
in its agricultural processing industries).

Table 2 Growth of the sectoral added value in 2025 compared to the baseline scenario
(%)

Algeria/ Rest of
Scenarios Egypt Morocco Tunisia Turkey EU
Libya the Middle East

S1 -1,48 1,66 -1,52 8,69 -0,98 -0,49 0,39

Agricultural
products

S2 -2,55 3,09 -1,11 10,07 0,19 -0,61 0,38

S3 -2,47 3,18 -1,05 10,01 0,42 -0,31 0,43
S4 -4,00 5,06 4,50 8,88 0,52 -1,14 0,08
S1 -0,01 -0,96 -0,25 -0,08 -0,03 -0,03 -0,02
products
Primary

S2 0,22 0,26 -0,98 -0,34 0,63 -0,03 -0,03

S3 0,26 0,31 -1,10 -0,16 0,59 0,02 -0,04
S4 0,81 2,60 -0,13 -1,49 1,56 0,10 0,00

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 15
 Algeria/ Rest of
Scenarios Egypt Morocco Tunisia Turkey EU
Libya the Middle East

S1 -0,26 1,41 0,31 -0,15 0,10 -0,02 0,02

Industrial
products

S2 -3,71 1,82 0,96 4,53 2,65 0,28 0,00

S3 -3,48 1,97 0,83 3,95 2,41 0,47 0,02
S4 -6,59 2,41 1,28 7,70 6,73 0,97 -0,21
S1 -0,45 0,05 -0,24 2,24 -0,17 -0,06 0,05
Services

S2 -1,70 0,38 -0,10 3,73 0,90 -0,04 0,05

S3 -1,58 1,74 1,03 5,10 1,72 0,52 0,12
S4 -3,10 0,78 1,54 4,68 2,15 -0,20 -0,08

Source: CEPII-AFD (2012).

Marginal impact of SEMC Figure 15

2.4. regional integration
Changes in exports to the other SEMCs in
There is a general consensus that the lack of
2025 (%)
SEMC market integration hinders economic
growth in spite of attempts at regional inte-
gration, which, for various reasons, have not 20
come to fruition (Arab Maghreb Union 15
[AMU], Agadir Agreement, GAFTA). Indeed,
10
the small size of each market is a strong
deterrent for productive investment 5
(foreign and domestic alike). 0

To isolate the impact of inter-SEMC trade -5

integration independently of a deepened -10
Euro-Med integration one of the scenarios
Turkey Egypt Tunisia Morocco Algeria Rest
simulated the gains from a Med-Med trade Libya of the
liberalisation (cf. Appendix 1), including Middle East
estimates for partial trade liberalisation for
industrial goods (excluding sensitive products
scenario S2.e., cf. Appendix 1) and then S2.e. S2.f. S1
partial trade liberalisation for agricultural
products (excluding sensitive products
scenario S2.f.). Figure 15 shows these gains
compared to those obtained for Euro-Med Note: S2.e., S2.f. and S1 correspond to the liberalisation scenarios presented in the text.
integration (scenario S1 presented above).
The results indicate that, with the exception Source: CEPII-AFD (2012).

of Turkey, none of the SEMCs would benefit

from Med-Med trade liberalisation.

16 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013

 2/ A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation alone will not increase
The foremost explanation may be that there is not
enough economic complementarity between the
SEMCs to generate a ripple effect on trade flows and
economic growth. The similarity of their production
structures, on the one hand between oil-producing
countries and on the other between non-oil-producing
countries, severely limits the potential for intra-
regional trade. In this context, the relatively higher
gains in Turkey provide an interesting insight, which
echoes the results observed in sectoral reallocations.
Only those countries following the path of advanced
diversification would be able to benefit from greater
trade openness between the SEMCs. Turkish exports
to other SEMCs would increase particularly in the
industrial sector.
Beyond the simulation results, the impact of trade
liberalisation depends on how diversified a countrys
economy is initially. The greater the diversity of the
initial production structure, the greater the likelihood
that trade liberalisation will lead to a reallocation of
resources to new production activities. Conversely,
the more concentrated the initial production struc-
ture, the more trade liberalisation would tend to
accentuate this.
What does past experience of the SEMCs show us?
Even the SEMCs whose initial level of diversification
was relatively higher (Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt) have
had their structural dynamics obstructed by speciali-
sations in low value-added industrial activities that
have remained static over recent decades. This activity
lock-in has prevented them from moving up the
/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? /
the SEMCs growth potential
value chain into activities with higher technological
content. Most of these countries are (historically)
vertically integrated with the EU through inter-industry
trade linkages that give rise to inflexible inter-company
relations.
The decline of these specialisations in a context of
trade openness resulted in the erosion of their
compe titive advantage in European markets during a
period when a large part of their production fabric
was exposed to fierce competition from cheap
imports in their own markets.
The analysis of the SEMCs structural competitive
weakness has produced a shared diagnosis (World
Bank, 2006 b ; Femise, 2007, 2012). There are many
possible explanations for the SEMCs structural
blockage: constraints to forming domestic productive
capital (absence of large industrial groups, fragmented
SME fabric), low employment rates, structural rigidity
of the job market, unfavourable business climate
(bureaucracy, inefficient administration, legal uncer-
tainty, corruption), weak intermediation of financial
markets and persistent rent-seeking.
In addition, past consequences of trade openness in
the SEMCs help shed some light on the simulation
results. Structural competitive weakness, insufficient
economic diversification and no upgrade in the value
chain are undoubtedly all factors to be overcome for
a virtuous regional trade liberalisation to be imple-
mented.
17
 3 / Conclusions and outlook
3.1. The cost of the non-Mediterranean
turns out to be less than expected
The impact of Euro-Med agreements has been
analysed in an abundant literature that shows the
weakness of the link between trade openness and
growth in the SEMCs (Jarreau, 2011).
The contribution of this CEPII-AFD study is mainly
based on two methodological approaches. First,
whereas most studies conduct an ex-ante assessment
of trade liberalisation, this study aims to evaluate the
observed effects taking into account not only the
Euro-Med agreements but also all agreements between
the SEMCs and third countries. Second, this study
examines the expected effects of deepening trade
liberalisation through various realistic scenarios. In
particular, it attempts to identify the sectoral impacts
of trade liberalisation, which are insufficiently dealt
with in previous studies.
Four conclusions may be drawn from this studys
findings:
while the Barcelona Process has so far not led to
greater Euro-Med integration, the SEMCs appear
to fall more within a trajectory of global trade
integration; this integration has led to a weakening
of the effects of the Euro-Med integration;
trade liberalisation would mainly benefit the agri-
cultural and agri-food sectors;
a deepening of Euro-Med integration would not
significantly raise the growth potential of SEMCs
and would have a limited overall effect on economic
diversification;
regional integration between the SEMCs would
substantially increase the gains of Euro-Med inte-
gration, but this alone would not have a positive
impact.
18 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013
Overall, on this basis, it is difficult to deduce a meaning-
ful cost of the non-Mediterranean.
These conclusions should, however, be qualified
depending on the country. Tunisia and Turkey would
benefit from regional trade liberalisation more than
the other countries, where the impact would be
negative or barely positive. Both of these countries
are characterised not only by economies that were
initially more diversified, but also by measures that
have accompanied the liberalisation of trade, in the
form of policies to upgrade companies. A countrys
capacity to develop and implement public policies in
favour of structural reforms and long-run growth is a
major differentiating factor.
3.2. The need to rehabilitate the
States role
This empirical evidence helps to feed the debate on
the SEMCs paths to transitioning growth models. It
may also be interpreted in light of current macro -
economic weaknesses brought on by the global crisis
and even more by the political transitions facing some
of these countries.
Indeed, the inertia of the SEMCs economic structures
should be put into a socio-economic context. First,
growth is no longer able to absorb the huge influx of
new entrants onto the labour market and, more gene-
rally, to reduce serious social problems. Second,
although growth was more sustained during the
2000s, it was only weakly redistributive and its eco -
nomic gains were largely captured by private interests,
mostly those close to policy makers. This deep-rooted
crisis has triggered a strong social demand focussed
on access to employment, equity and the fight against
corruption.
 2/ A deepening of Euro-Med trade liberalisation alone will not increase
This context combining heightened social tensions
and political transition reveals the need for more
government. Not a demiurgic State, but a State that
will introduce mechanisms to redistribute wealth,
combat systemic corruption and foster human and
social development.
Liberalisation, pursued indiscriminately since the
1980s, has crippled national capacities for public
regulation, thus contributing to the collapse of the
emerging middle classes, the rise of rent-seeking
networks and the development of an informal economy.
Certainly, democratisation cannot be disassociated
from the existence of political checks and balances
and the full expression of individual and collective
freedom, but it must also be accompanied by a
rebuilding of the State. Strengthening legal institutions,
restoring public administrations, bolstering the social
protection system and organising market regulation
institutions will thus be major post-revolution challenges
(Rodrik, 2009).
3.3. Redefining long-run growth
levers
Three lessons can be drawn to help reassess long-run
growth policies.
First and foremost, pro-growth policies cannot be
defined on the basis of trade liberalisation alone.
When some of the SEMCs (Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia,
Jordan) entered into negotiations with the EU to
extend trade agreements to services and agricultural
products, what was the expected effect on economic
growth? The export-led model the cornerstone
model for growth in emerging countries has largely
inspired pro-growth policies in the SEMCs since the
1990s. However, institutional and structural short -
comings have hindered the onset of a virtuous dynamic
between trade and growth (Mezouaghi, 2010).
Competitive weakness has gradually eroded their
comparative advantages in the European market. In
addition, trade openness has had limited effects on
growth, since specialisations have locked production
into activities with low added value or based on the
/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? /
the SEMCs growth potential
exploitation of primary resources. Without structural
change in the productive base, trade liberalisation
may increase vulnerability to external shocks and
exacerbate social inequalities.
Against this backdrop of competitive weakness, trade
openness needs to be gradual in order to protect
nascent industries and high-growth sectors by allowing
them to accrue learning effects before any exposure
to competition (Rodrik, 2001). Moreover, opening up
trade stepwise would likely enhance the indirect
effects of regionalisation, since the SEMCs would
benefit from preferential access to the European market,
compared to the EUs other trading partners.
Secondly, trade openness requires appropriate public
policies in order to escape the structural adjustment
paradigm that has led these countries to abandon
policies for long-run growth since the 1980s.
For the SEMCs, three types of major structural policies
may have a lever effect on economic growth: (i) an
industrial policy that would set out to identify and
protect key sectors with added value and job creation
potential (particularly in agro-industrial and service
activities), and to foster technological innovation and
learning effects that would encourage value chain
upgrades in industrial activities (Hausmann and
Rodrik, 2003), (ii) a policy to develop human capital
that would align training systems with labour market
needs in view of stimulating structural changes in the
production base and easing social tensions (Amin et
al. , 2012), and (iii) a proactive policy for public and
private funding of the economy that would encourage
the formation of national productive capital by
facilitating private investment and modernising infra-
structure.
Thirdly, increasing the potential for growth means
harnessing globalisation.
High-growth countries all share the aptitude to dynami-
cally integrate the global economy, to appropriate
technologies and foster learning effects, introduce
macroeconomic discipline and increase levels of
investment by mobilising domestic savings and
enhancing their attractiveness (Commission on
19
 Growth and Development, 2008). International
competition will continue to exert strong pressure on
the price competitiveness of goods and services,
prompting multinational firms to reduce production
costs by offshoring production lines or suppliers in
countries able to provide this competitive advantage.
The constraint of proximity will also continue to hold
sway for goods and services requiring just-in-time
supply chain management.
20 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013
The SEMCs should, in this regard, (re)define their
policy to promote investment attractiveness. This
would encourage multinational firms to set up locally
and would create spill-over effects on the economy as
a whole (creating externalities). Specifically, this
policy should target the formation of domestic
productive capital and local learning capacity, which
underpins the implementation of modern industrial
processes and the mobilisation of a skilled labour
force (Mezouaghi, 2009).
 Appendix

Appendix 1
Liberalisation scenarios

Baseline
Scenarios EU-MED MED-MED Euro-Med liberalisation of trade in goods
scenario

complete liberalisation of trade in industrial goods

S1.a. x complete liberalisation of trade in industrial goods

S1.a + partial liberalisation of trade in agricultural products

S1.b. x S1
(excluding sensitive products)*

S1.c. x S1.a. + complete liberalisation of trade in agricultural products

Med-Med liberalisation of trade in goods

S1.b. + partial liberalisation of trade in industrial goods

S2.a. x x
(excluding sensitive products)

S2.b. x x S1.b. + complete liberalisation of trade in industrial goods

S2.a. partial liberalisation of trade in agricultural products

S2.c. x x S2
(excluding sensitive products)*

S2.d. x x S2.b. + complete liberalisation of trade in agricultural products

partial liberalisation of trade in industrial goods

S2.e. x
(excluding sensitive products)*

S2.e. + partial liberalisation of trade in agricultural products

S2.f. x
(excluding sensitive products)*

Euro-Med liberalisation of trade in services

S3.a. x S2.c. + partial liberalisation of services **

S3.b. x S2.c. + partial liberalisation of services *** S3

S3.c. x S2.c. + complete liberalisation of services

S3.d. x x S2.c. + complete liberalisation of services

Multilateral liberalisation

S4 x x S2.c. + complete liberalisation of trade in goods with third countries S4

In italics: reference scenarios

* sensitive products: 5% of the most protected tariff lines.

** large reduction of ad-valorem equivalents of tariff barriers (100% : communication; 50% : trade, transportation, financial services, insurance, business services; 0%
public services).
*** moderate reduction of ad-valorem equivalents of tariff barriers (60% : communication; 30% : trade, transportation, financial services, insurance, business services; 0%
public services).

Source: Cepii-Afd (2012), The Cost of the Non-Mediterranean

/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? / 21
 List of acronyms and abbreviations

BACI Base pour l'Analyse du commerce GDP Gross domestic product

international (World Trade Database) PPP Purchasing power parity
CEPII Centre dEtudes Prospectives SEMCs South and East Mediterranean countries
et dInformations Internationales
(Center for International Prospective EU European Union
Studies) AMU Arab Maghreb Union
GAFTA Greater Arab Free Trade Agreement WDI World Development Index
GTAP Global Trade Analyses Project

22 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013


References
AMIN, M., R. ASSAAD, N. al-BAHARNA, K.L. DERVIS,
R.J. M. DESAI, N.S. DHILLON, A. GALAL, H. GHANEM,
C. GRAHAM and D. KAUFMANN (2012), After the
Spring: Economic Transitions in the Arab World ,
Oxford University Press, New York.
ANDERSON, J. and E. VAN WINCOOP (2003),
Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border
Puzzle, American Economic Review , American
Economic Association, 93(1), pp. 170-192.
BAIER, S. and J. BERGSTRAND (2009), Bonus Vetus
OLS: A Simple Method for Approximating International
Trade-cost Effects Using the Gravity Equation, Journal
of International Economics, Elsevier, 77(1), p. 77-85.
BENSASSI,S., J. DE SOUZA and J. JARREAU (2012),
Preferential Trade Agreements Proliferation: Sorting
out the Effects, mimeo.
CEPII-AFD (2012), The Cost of the Non-mediterranean,
unpublished report.
THE COMMISSION ON GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT (2008), The Growth Report:
Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive
Development, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
FEMISE (2012), Convergence Beyond the Economic
Sphere: Effects and Feedbacks of Euro-Med Integration,
FEM34-21, available at: http://www.femise.org
/ Euro-Med Growth and Trade Integration: can we talk of a cost of the non-Mediterranean? /
References
FEMISE (2007), Assessing the Macroeconomic Effects
of the Barcelona Initiatives Liberalization Process ,
FEM31-10, available at: http://www.femise.org
HAUSMANN, R. and D. RODRIK (2003), Economic
Development as Self-Discovery, Journal of
Development Economics, 72, pp. 603-633.
JARREAU, J. (2011), Economic Integration in the
EuroMed: Current Status and Review of Studies,
Working Papers, 2011-07, CEPII.
MEZOUAGHI, M. (2010), La conversion inacheve
des conomies dAfrique du Nord et du Moyen-Orient
au modle exportateur : quels enseignements dans un
contexte de crise ? , Mondes en Dveloppement,
2010/2, n 150, De Boeck, pp. 135-152.
MEZOUAGHI, M. (ED.) (2009), Les localisations
industrielles au Maghreb : attractivit, agglomration
et territoires, Karthala, Paris.
NABLI, M. and M.A. VEGANZONES-VAROUDAKIS
(2004), Reforms and Growth in MENA Countries: New
Empirical Evidence, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
RODRIK, D. (2009), Industrial Policy: Dont Ask Why,
Ask How, Middle East Development Journal, Vol. 1,
Issue 1, Economic Research Forum, 1-29.
23
 References

RODRIK, D. (2001), The Global Governance of Trade WORLD BANK (2006 b ), The Impact of Regional
-- As If Development Really Mattered, UNDP Trade Agreements and Trade Facilitation in the Middle
Background Paper, New York. East and North Africa Region, Policy Research
Working Paper, No. 3837.
WORLD BANK (2006a), Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and
Jordan after the End of the Multi-fiber Agreement:
Impact, Challenges and Prospects? , World Bank,
Washington, D.C.

Design: Ferrari/Corporate Tel. : 01 42 96 05 50 J. Rouy/ Coquelicot. Production: Denise Perrin

MACRODEV (''Macroeconomics and Development'') Director of Publications:

Anne PAUGAM
This collection was launched by AFDs Research Department to present Editorial Director:
the work produced in the field of development macroeconomics by AFD's Alain HENRY
Macroeconomic and Country Risks Analysis Unit (RCH/AMR) and AFD
Translator:
Group economists . It publishes studies that focus on countries, regions or Gill GLADSTONE
development-related macroeconomic issues. Agence Franaise de Dveloppement
5, rue Roland Barthes 75598 Paris cedex 12
The analyses and conclusions in this document are the sole responsibility of
Tl. : 33 (1) 53 44 31 31 www.afd.fr
the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the Agence Copyright: 4th quarter 2013
Franaise de Dveloppement or its partner institutions. ISSN: 2266-8187

24 AFD / Macroeconomics and Development / November 2013