Department of Political Studies - University of
Catania
Jean
Monnet Chair of European Comparative Politics
Jean Monnet Working
Papers in Comparative and International Politics
Al-Omari Bilal KHALAF
Economics Department, Bologna University
Jordan
Economy and the EU Association Agreement
November 2002 - JMWP n° 46
Abstract:
This paper aims at determining the most
important variables that could affect Jordan’s- EU trade, and to specify the
impact of Jordan-EU Association Agreement on Jordan Economy. We have modified
the Gravity equation to suite with Jordan case. We suppose that, in the short
run, the effect of integration on Jordan’s economy could be negative, since the
integration will create trade diversion; while in the long run it could be
positive due to trade creation. We also suppose that these variables have vital
effects on Jordan’s exports-imports with the EU countries. However, the
regression will illustrate that by single country for each of total
exports-imports, and by item products such as; Agricultures, Chemicals, Manufactures, Machinery and Other.**
There has been a marked shift in many countries since the early 1980s towards liberalizing international trade. Trade liberalization is a powerful instrument for increasing competition; formal trade policies such as the level and dispersion of tariff are one aspect of the trade regime. Many Free Trade Areas (FTA) have been established around the world (NAFTA, EFTA, LAFTA, EEC, etc.). All these examples indicate to the important of the economic integration between countries.
Currently, economic relations between Mediterranean (MED) countries, and the European Union (EU) are governed by cooperation agreements dating from the 1970s. These agreements are unlimited in duration, and provide duty –free access to the EU markets for industrial goods, and preferential access for agricultural commodities. These agreements were reformed in 1995 at the Barcelona conference into association agreements, with the goal of establishing a Free Trade Area in 2010. The major policy issue facing many countries in the south of Med region is how to follow the rest of the world in liberalizing, privatizing and deregulating markets?
A basic tenet of economic reform efforts undertaken in the last decade in many countries in the region has been that reform be gradual. Jordan is no exception from economic reform programs; it started in 1989 in gradual steps through help of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB).
Why was
the EU-Jordan Association Agreement developed?
Foreign initiative in Jordan most notably includes recent major attempts by the United States and the European Union to forge stronger links with Jordan, partly out of concern over potential instability in the region, partly for economic reasons. On the European front, one of these initiatives is the Euro-Med Association Agreement (AA), which signed into law last May. As agreed upon at the Euro Mediterranean Conference held in Barcelona in November 1995. The central feature of this pan-Mediterranean policy is the implementation of free trade agreements between the EU and each of the twelve non-member Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (SEM) countries, including Jordan and Lebanon, by 2010 (though it appears now that this will not be the case in all likelihood until 2012 at the earliest). Under this accord, Jordanian exports are granted immediate duty free entry to the EU, in the case of industrial goods, and phased in reductions of tariffs for agricultural products. Because the agreement provides for reciprocal treatment, the AA will progressively give the EU preferential access to the Jordanian market in a maximum of 12 years from the day the accord comes into force, to include almost all imports from the EU, except for cigarettes, alcohol, used cars, tomato paste, clothing, furniture and carpets, which are important sources of Jordanian customs revenues. At the same time, trade between Jordan, and the EU member countries has remained important for Jordan marginal for Europe. In 2001, Jordanian exports to the EU countries totalled JD50 million. By contrast, 31 per cent of the Kingdom's purchases from abroad came from the EU, equivalent to some JD1.1 billion.
Jordan’s Trade Balance with the European Union
Fuelled by the 22% increase in Jordanian imports, the trade
deficit rose by approximately 40% in 2001. According to the Central Bank of
Jordan, the trade deficit for 2001 was $ 2 billion, compared to $ 1.8 billion
in 2000. On the other hand, domestic exports grew at a modest 5% during 2001 with
total value of $ 1.3 billion compared to $ 1.1 billion in 2000 [Jordan Central
Bank, Annual Report, 2002, p.18].
Jordan’s trade deficit is setting into a regular pattern of
decline, albeit one which reflects sluggish economic activity. On the import
side, purchases from Arab countries rose, while those from Europe declined. As
the figures in the next table demonstrate, the percentages of Jordan’s exports
to EU countries from 1977-2001 are not significant, while Jordan’s imports from
EU countries are. Jordanian exports to EU countries peaked in 1996, at 8.29%
percent of total exports, and reached their lowest levels in 1981, representing
only 0.08% of total exports. At the same time, imports from EU countries to
Jordan reached their highest levels in 1979, when they accounted for 43% of
Jordan’s total imports; by 1990, this figure had declined to a low of 30.7%.
The evolution of the trade flow between the EU and Jordan
over the last five years - after Jordan signed the Association Agreements with
the EU in 1997- reflects the elusive growth of Jordanian economy. Imports from
the EU increased slightly in volume from 1997 through 2001, but it did not
increase in value, because it is still
not more than 32.5%, 32.3%, 31.0%, 33.0% and 31.0% respectively. We can find
that on the other side that, Jordan’s exports into EU markets during the same
period has negative fluctuation in 1998 which arrived at 0.29% to achieve
5.08%, 3.03% and 3.07% in 1999,2000, and 2001 respectively.
In sum, these fluctuations added up to a slight decrease in
1998 (-4,3%) of the permanent surplus in favor of the EU in the balance of
trade with Jordan. This surplus increased again in 1999, which was higher than
1997 and 1996. The slowdown in growth of the past few years continued in 2000 and
2001, with actual performance falling below the level required to maintain per
capita income, meet the challenges of unemployment and improve standards of
living. But significant developments took place in 1999 that are likely to
positively impact economic growth in 2000.
Table 1: Jordan EX.IM, Trade Balance with
the EU 1977-2001
By 1000 JD
|
Year |
EX to the EU |
IM from the EU |
Trade Balance with the EU |
Total % of EX to the EU |
Total % of IM from the EU |
|
1977 |
872 |
179.130 |
-178.258 |
1.44 |
39.4 |
|
1978 |
1.340 |
190.418 |
-189.078 |
2.08 |
41.5 |
|
1979 |
1.138 |
255.295 |
-254.157 |
1.38 |
43.3 |
|
1980 |
2.096 |
303.168 |
-301.072 |
0.09 |
42.3 |
|
1981 |
2.760 |
389.699 |
-386.939 |
0.08 |
37.2 |
|
1982 |
3.621 |
375.229 |
-371.608 |
0.10 |
32.8 |
|
1983 |
9.460 |
366.072 |
-356.612 |
0.27 |
33.1 |
|
1984 |
12.25 |
359.748 |
-347.463 |
0.21 |
33.5 |
|
1985 |
11.78 |
341.267 |
-329.519 |
0.20 |
31.7 |
|
1986 |
19.57 |
319.352 |
-299.765 |
0.38 |
37.5 |
|
1987 |
17.33 |
311.041 |
-293.738 |
0.31 |
33.9 |
|
1988 |
25.90 |
324.315 |
-298.385 |
0.35 |
31.7 |
|
1989 |
25.10 |
401.062 |
-375.962 |
0.21 |
32.6 |
|
1990 |
22.28 |
531.408 |
-329.150 |
0.16 |
30.7 |
|
1991 |
18.66 |
552.544 |
-533.858 |
3.12 |
32.3 |
|
1992 |
19.34 |
698.716 |
-679.402 |
3.05 |
31.5 |
|
1993 |
28.21 |
814.351 |
-786.080 |
4.09 |
33.1 |
|
1994 |
40.84 |
838.152 |
-797.328 |
5.14 |
35.4 |
|
1995 |
63.01 |
859.261 |
-796.250 |
6.27 |
33.1 |
|
1996 |
86.27 |
963.627 |
-877.380 |
8.29 |
31.6 |
|
1997 |
77.72 |
946.995 |
-870.243 |
7.29 |
32.5 |
|
1998 |
69.02 |
887.829 |
-818.797 |
0.29 |
32.3 |
|
1999 |
60.90 |
834.900 |
-774.000 |
5.08 |
31.0 |
|
2000 |
35.50 |
1.074.200 |
-1.038.700 |
3.03 |
33.0 |
|
2001 |
50.00 |
1.089.000 |
-1.039.000 |
3.07 |
31.0 |
Source: Department of Statistics; Amman. Jordan,
Statistical Year Book,
Issue No.53, Pp.505-508, 2001.
Even if Jordan had signed a preferential agreement with EU countries in 1977- granting free access to EU markets for Jordanian products - and also the Association agreement in 1997. We can find that, Jordanian imports from the EU average between 30% to 35%, which is significant for the EU side, while Jordanian exports to the EU average between 1.0% to 3%, which does not represent a significant portion of Jordan’s exports. In this context we must ask why Jordan has a trade deficit with the EU or with others?
We may find many reasons; in fact, largely due to revenues generated from tourism and exports of labor to the Gulf States, Jordan enjoys a positive balance in trade in services. The services sector is the greater contributor to GDP at 70% as compared to industrial output, which contributes approximately 30%. When compared to government services 20% contribution to GDP, manufacturing contributes far less at 13.5%. Contributes to GDP from services and industry agricultural 3.4% and mining 2.6%. This is significant when drawing on the experiences of the economic success stories of Tunisia, Asia, and Latin America where the manufacturing and the development of light industry have played a catalytic role in economic growth in these countries. Jordan has taken examples from countries such as these into account when developing its own export-oriented growth paradigm. While Jordan has a relatively small industrial base and limited natural resources, it does have an educated workforce and, through directing FDI in industry as well as services, it can create much needed employment opportunities and ensure long-term investment. The government has begun the process by signing agreements for the development of large joint-venture downstream projects in the minerals sector, which is estimated to attract over Euro 1 billion in FDI in the last year [EC, Delegation, Annual Report, 2001, p.15].
Notwithstanding, constraints caused by the security
situation and also weak intra –regional trade among Med countries can be partly
explained by the prevalence of generally trade-restrictive regimes. Non-tariff
barriers, such as licensing, bans, state trade monopolies and restrictive
foreign exchange allocations, are also extensive in a number of economies.
However, as more Arab countries join the World Trade Organization (WTO), non-
tariff barriers will be abolished and tariffs on imports will be capped at a
specific level to be reduced gradually in the coming years. The decision on
Jordan’s membership in the WTO came in December 1999, in the wake of a series
of trade-related intellectual property rights passed in late 1999. With WTO
membership and IPR legislation, Jordan may become suitable place for foreign
investors; it may also provide Jordan’s trade with the Arab countries in the
Med region and also with the EU. But, to secure its place in the global
marketplace, help its exporters enjoy quota and duty free access to the EU and
US and reduce barriers to entry in other strategic markets, Jordan will have to
further intensify efforts to attract investment, both local and foreign,
improve the competitiveness of its local enterprises and create employment
opportunities.
The Jordan-EU agreement also entails a process of alignment
of policies and regulations and upgrading of administrations with a view to
creating a single Euro-Mediterranean market, for example in the fields of
technical standards, conformity assessments and certifications, protection of
industrial and intellectual property rights, competition, state aid and
monopolies, veterinary and plant health, company law, accounting and auditing
standards, data and consumer protection, financial services,
public-procurement, and customs. On the economic side, the agreement contains a
detailed timetable for the creation of a free trade area compatible with WTO
requirements, to be completed over a transitional period of up to twelve years,
starting with May 1, 2002, in which Jordan will gradually eliminate customs
duties on EU exports of industrial products to the Kingdom. Industrial exports
from Jordan already had duty-free access to the EU under the Cooperation
Agreement of 1977. However, the EU has not been, until now, a prominent export
destination for Jordanian products, something that the new agreement may
contribute to change. In agricultural trade, a gradual liberlisation is
foreseen, with immediate further concessions for Jordanian exports. These
concessions will be reviewed as early as this year; we must examine the best
ways of bringing further liberlisation to this sector, subject to a gradual and
reciprocal approach, which will benefit all our people.
The Euro-Mediterranean trade and industry and foreign ministers have recently decided in principle to extend the system of pan-European commutation of origin to Mediterranean partners, once the technical problems are solved. With political will and hard work, in the future, a fabric could be produced in France or Egypt, dyed in Hungary and made into a dress in Jordan for export to Ireland without paying any duty. Such opening would bring about tremendous new trade and investment opportunities in Jordan, for regional and European business partners. To make the change operational, the "origin protocol" of the EU-Jordan Agreement must be amended, and Jordan must conclude free trade agreements with harmonised rules of origin with other Mediterranean partners.
This is an ambitious long-haul agenda to be implemented by the EU and Mediterranean partners over time. Now it is important that Jordan take advantage of the agreement. Only around 3 per cent of Jordan's exports go to the EU, and the trade deficit with Europe is rising. This is unsustainable in the long run. Therefore: the private sector should take advantage of a huge, open and enlarging European market. Given Jordan's volatile external environment, i.e., the Kingdom's exposure to economic and political shocks in the Middle East and the Gulf countries, it would be better if exports were more diversified to alternative export destinations and not concentrated in the region. Jordan's industries have to continue to work towards improved variety, quality and marketing of products to become competitive in the EU, and elsewhere. Moreover, the modest level of domestic and south-south investment and trade-in the Mediterranean is worrying. Investors looking at this region will see compartmentalised small and separate markets, with conflicting standards and regulations. Drawing from the experience of the candidate countries of Eastern Europe, we know that regional integration and alignment to the single market can induce a massive increase in investment, which has a knock-on effect on job creation, trade increase and economic stabilisation. Jordan’s authorities have proven their commitment to regional trade liberalisation, and we can see the Kingdom as a motor for enhanced regional free trade with Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt within the"Agadir" initiative. The EU has been supporting Jordan financially; while the EU is already the largest single source of foreign direct investment in Jordan, the Kingdom must continue to try to increase this assistance, and attract FDI.
In conclusion the economy did pick up in 2000 and 2001, mainly on the back of economic reforms, improved economic conditions in the region, especially the Gulf, and accelerated privatization. The momentum could continue through 2002 as long as the Middle East crisis continues. On the right track to trade liberalization, Jordan has now acceded to the WTO, has seen the Association Agreement with the EU entered into force in the late May 2002, and is in the process of concluding a free trade agreement with US. It has also signed bilateral and multilateral agreements with its Arab neighbors. These are critical issues for future sustained economic growth and social stability, and are recognised as such by the Jordanian governments.
Trade Flow Model (gravity equation)
With the exception of [Balassa: 1967], in the study of trade creation (TC) and trade diversion (TD) in the EEC and the EFTA, the common approach to quantifying the effects of integration on trade flows has utilized the so-called gravity equation. The gravity equation has proven popular for several reasons:
First, it provides an empirically tractable
general equilibrium framework for modeling bilateral trade flows.
Second, it has a sound theoretical basis.
Finally, it has proved useful in a variety of
applications [Brada and Mendez: 1985,p.541].
The basic model of trade flow by [Tinbergen: 1962] is written as:
[1]
Value of export from country 
to country 
Constant
, Y
:
income in the exporting and importing countries 
N
, N
: population in the exporting and importing countries
D
: distance between countries 
and 
e
: log normal term error.
[Aitken: 1973], using the gravity equation trade flow model developed by [Tinbergen: 1962] and [Linnemann: 1966], attempted to isolate empirically the major forces which have shaped the European trade relations over the period 1951-67. He estimated via the use of dummy variables the impact of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) on member trade. Depending on the definition by Balassa for gross trade creation, GTC will refer to the total increase in trade among members of a trading community brought about through integration, regardless of whether the additional trade policies replace domestic production, or whether they replace non-member exports. The substitution of imports from member countries (higher cost of import) for imports from member countries (lower cost imports) will constitute trade diversion (TD). External trade creation (ETC) will refer to integration –caused increases in trade between a trading community and countries outside the trading community [Balassa: 1967,p.5].
Aitken has indicated that, all the empirical studies which have attempted to measure integration effects have been faced with the common problem of isolating the effects of integration on trade from the effect of income growth, and changes in other variables, which normally affect international trade pattern. Aitkin’s study has attempted to deal with these problems by estimating through Least Squares Regression Method, the following variant of the Linnemann trade flow model for each year of the 17-year period 1951-1967. The equation [1] is rewritten as:
[2]
Where, 
is the dollar value of export from country 
to country 
, Y
: is the GDP of
countries 
N
, N
: population in the exporting and importing countries
D
: distance between countries 
and 
e
: log normal term error
A
: Are the dummy variables for
neighboring countries
P
and P
are dummy variables for trade between partners of EEC and
EFTA respectively, and log refers to common logarithm. Noting that the neighboring countries A
expect to have an additional stimulus to trade between them
refers to the similarity of the tastes, and an awareness of common interest.
Using this model permitted Aitken to incorporate into analysis as independent
variables the preferences area effects through the dummy variables, which are
used to represent in an approximate way phenomena which are difficult to
measure [Aitken: 1973, pp. 881-883].
[Aitken: 1976] has also attempted to study the effect of the association agreement on trade between the African Associate countries (AAC), and the (EEC), by using the dummy variables to represent the trade preferences between the AAC and EEC members, and by calculating the cross-sectional equations for African trade with developed countries for each year of the period 1958-71. The study was able to trace the cumulative effect of the agreement on exports both of AAC and EEC members. The following cross -sectional trade flow equations are employed to measure the trade impact of the EEC – AAC preferential agreements:
LX + b + b
= b
+ b
LD
+ b
LY
+ b
LY
LP
+ b
LP
[3]
LP
+ b
LP
+e
LX + b + b
= b
+ b
LD
+ b
LY
+ b
LY
LP
+ b
LP
LP
+ b
LP
+b
LA 
+e
[4]
Where for equation (3)
L: represent log,
X
: is the dollar value of African country 
exports to developed country 
D
: is the distance between the commercial
centers of the two countries
Y 
and Y
: are the nominal GDPs of countries 
and 
P
, P
, P
, P
: are dummy variables for the British preferences for
exports of African Commonwealth countries, the preferences of the EEC countries
other than France for the exports of the African Association countries, the
France preferences for Tunisian – Moroccan exports, and the French preference
for the export of the African Associate countries who are former French
colonies .
e
: is the random error in log
value
And where the equation (4) represents that
X
: the dollar value of developed
country 
exports to African
country
.
The independent variables are essentially the same in equation (3), except that the dummy variables, which represent the African country’s preference for the exports of the respective, developed countries with which has a trade preferences agreement.
A 
: represent the dollar value of aid from developed
country 
to African country 
.
Y: is a measure of economic capacity, which determines potential export supply for the exporting nation, and potential import demand by the importing country [Aitken: 1967,pp.425-433].
[Pelzman: 1977] starts from the premise that, although economic integration for the former USSR is for the purpose of increasing its dominance, both economic and political, over the rest of the CMEA, for the remaining developed member countries it is seen as a natural development and maximizes the economic gains from trade and cooperation. He then points out that the CMEA differs from customs Unions in free market economies in one important respect: it does not have a clearly defined common external tariff (CET). However, he is quick to add that proxy bilateral negotiations were carried out between member countries of the CMEA; hence, one should be in a position to estimate trade creation (TC) and trade diversion (TD).
The model used is a variant of the cross –sectional [Linnemann: 1966] trade flow model that differs slightly from the one utilized by [Aitken: 1973]. The main difference is that the measurement of effects of the CMEA on trade flows requires the use of the gravity trade flow model, modified to allow for the fact that prices are not directly incorporated into the model. Hence the trade flow model becomes:
Log x + log + log e
=
g
+g
log
Y
+g
log
Y
+g
log
N
log
N
+g
log D
+g
log
p
[5]
Where,
Is the dollar value of export from country 
to country
?
, Y
: represent the
GNP of countries 
N
, N
: population in the exporting and importing countries
D
: distance between countries 
and 
P
: is the dummy preferences
variable reflecting CMEA membership with the value 2 given to intra-CMEA trade,
while the value 1 is assigned to intra –CMEA flows, and log refers to natural
logs. This is obviously derived from the general framework equilibrium model.
It specifies that (a) the mutual trade of countries 
and 
is determined by the
relative size of their foreign trade sector; (b) country 
potential foreign
supply depends on its national product (Y)
and on the ratio between production for the domestic market and the production
for the foreign markets, which is due to differences in population; (c) given
economies of scale, the larger N is,
the larger is the ratio of the domestic market to the foreign market , and the
smaller is the potential export supply of the country ; (d) the variables Y
and N
together determine the potential import demand for
country 
; (e) D
is a proxy for trade resistance , hence D
together with N
and N
is hypothesized to have a negative effect on 
(f ) the dummy
variable (DV) P
reflects membership of the CMEA ; and (g ) the estimated
coefficient on the dummy variable (DV) measures the extent to which intra-CMEA
trade flows are augmented [Pelzman: 1977,pp.714-715].
Brada and Mendez, through their study about the economic integration among developing, developed countries, indicated that the effects of intra –member trade are influenced by three sets of factors:
First, the environmental characteristic, which they took to mean the physical and economic integration countries.
Second, influence on the effectiveness of the integration is the economic system of the integration countries.
Finally, there is the element of policy; some integration schemes lower barriers against inter-member trade to a greater degree than others do, and thus are more effective in increasing inter-member exchange.
In order to overcome these difficulties they modified the basic gravity equation [1] to take into account the environmental effects on the effectiveness of integration. The environmental variables they modeled are: the distance between integration countries, and their level of development. They considered that, the level of development should have appositive impact on the effects of integration largely because less developed countries have a structural bias against trade, and thus benefits less from integration. Their production is concentrated in subsistence agriculture and in services, neither of which enter into international trade. The bulk of their trade is thus with countries of differing level of development, and consists of exchanges of agricultural products, and raw material for manufactures. Developed countries’ production, concentrated in manufactures, permits both complementary trade as well as a large measure of intra – industry exchanges generally not available to developing country.
Log x + + +
To measure
these environmental influences on trade flows they rewrote equation [1] to be
as:
= A +
log
Y
+ 
log Y
+
log
N
log N
+ 
log D
+ 
log Q
P
log
( Y
/N
) (
Y
/N
) 
P
logD
+loge
[6]
Where:
Q
= 2 and P
= 2 if countries 
and 
belong to the same preferences area and 1 and 0, respectively, when
countries 
and 
belong to different or no preferences
areas. The coefficient 
measures the effect
of per capita income on the effectiveness of integration. If the coefficient is
positive, then the effect of integration on inter-member trade increases with
the level of development of the integration countries, reflecting the higher proportion
of tradables in their output. The coefficient 
measures the effect
of distance on the trade augmenting power of customs union. The greater the
distance among members, the smaller ceteris
paribus, is the augmentation of their trade with each other [Brada and
Mendez: 1985,pp.551-552].
Based on the above we can present the following general mathematical equation, which implies all the economic factors, and variables that could affect the trade flow between two different countries or between two different communities. These factors include income in the exporting and importing countries, population in the exporting and importing countries, distance between the two countries or communities, difference of cultures, levels and similarities in development, and financial aids.
[7]
Jordan-EU Trade Flow Configuration:
To configure the previous general
mathematical equation to measure the trade flow between Jordan and the EU, we
need to determine the value
of mutual income between Jordan 
and each country of
the EU members 
, Population size of Jordan 
and all the EU
members 
, distance between Jordan and each of the EU members 
also must be known in
advance - that will be used as indication factors for the market size and the
transportation problems among the different countries. Financial aids, and
technical transfer from the EU countries to Jordan 
; the difference of economic development level between Jordan
and each country of the EU should be an important factor that improves the
trade flow analysis. We can get the differences in GDP for Jordan and each of
the EU countries by (
- 
) ², we can name this variable by 
so 
= (
- 
) ².
The instability
of the political situation in the Middle East has significant effects on
Jordan’s economic growth, where political and economic variables have played an
important effect in Jordan, which could have negative impact on 
. So the political and economic variables should be added in
our model to be as Dummy variables 
. At the same time the Jordan Dinar crisis of 1988 - which
resulted in about 50% devaluation - has had negative effects on Jordan’s
economy. We suppose that the Jordan Dinar exchange rate 
could have negative
effects on 
. So the exchange rate should also be added to the model.
Rearranging and renaming the different coefficients of the equation [7], we get
the trade flow between Jordan and the country member 
among the EU
countries for a general item of commercial interest as follows:
[8]
The income and
the population variables represent the trading countries endowments and tastes.
Since greater productive capacity and income promote trade, 
is expected to be
positive, while 
is expected to be
negative. Large countries have more diversified production and thus satisfy a
greater proportion of domestic demand, while small countries tend to be more
specialized and thus more dependent on trade, suggesting that 
could be negative.
The population of the importing country should have a positive effect on the
volume of trade, since a larger population permits a greater division of labor
and diversity of production, enabling imports to compete with domestic goods at
more stages of the production process. Moreover, a large market better
compensates exporters for the cost of acquiring information and establishing a
sales and distribution network. Thus 
should be positive. 
Is a proxy variable
for natural trade resistance, consequently, 
along with 
and 
is hypothesized to
have negative effect on 
. The financial aids and technological transfer 
from the EU countries to Jordan should be positive, we
suppose that 
is positive.
To analyze the
data collected according to the period to show the impact of the Euro-Jordan
association agreement on trade flows, we will use the statistical package of
Econometric Views (time series regression) for the period 1985-2001. In this
case, the 
distance variable will
be canceled, for two reasons: first, the value of the distance in time series
regression will be insufficient; second, because Jordan has signed two
agreements with EU countries, the preferential agreement in 1977 and the
association agreement in 1997, which means the distance variable could not have
a very important effect in the trade flow between Jordan and each EU country.
Rearranging and
renaming the different coefficients of the equation, we can get the trade flow
between 
and the country
member 
among the EU
countries for a general item of commercial interest.
[9]
We can use the same independent variables to estimate its impact on Jordan imports from each EU country; rewriting the same equation at follows:
[10]
The dependent
variable 
, in equation [9] represents the Jordanian export value for
each EU country, and the dependent variable 
in equation [10]
represents the Jordanian import value from each EU country. And where the
independent variables are;
: Is constant
: Is the logarithm of
the dollar value of Jordan GDP
: Is the logarithm of
the dollar value of each EU country’s GDP
: Is the logarithm of the
population in Jordan
: Is the logarithm of
the population in each EU country
: Is the logarithm of the politics and economic situations
(dummy variable)
: is the logarithm of the financial assistance from each EU
country
: is the logarithm of the Jordanian Dinar exchange rate by $.
: is the differences in
GDP between Jordan and each EU country
: is the logarithm of
the term error
We suppose that, in the short run, the effect of integration on Jordan’s economy could be negative, since the integration will create trade diversion; while in the long run it could be positive due to trade creation. We also suppose that these variables have vital effects on Jordan’s exports-imports with the EU countries. However, the regression will illustrate that by single country for each of total exports-imports, and by item products such as; Agricultures, Chemicals, Manufactures, Machinery and Others.
The data of the variables 
and 
the GDP of the EU
countries and the GDP of Jordan for the period 1985-2001 have been collected
from, (IMF; International
Financial Statistics Yearbook: 2001). The data of
the 
has also been
collected from the same source at the same year. The data of the 
variable has been
collected from (Hashimety
Kingdom of Jordan; Statistical Yearbook, 2001). The
evaluation of the 
variable has been
estimated by the researcher depending on the late IMF resources. We depended on
the data from Central Bank
of Jordan to evaluate the 
Jordan Dinar exchange
rate variable. The data of the 
financial assistance
from EU countries for Jordan have been collected from (The EU Delegation in Amman, Annual
Reports, many issues). The dummy variable has been
evaluated by the researcher point of view. We supposed that, the economic and
political situations have vital effect on Jordan’s trade balance. For the
period 1985-2001, we will set value of (0) for the year
which has no important economic-political events, while the value of (1) will set to
the year which has important events that may affect Jordan’s trade balance.
Table four will illustrate our estimate. The Jordan-EU exports-imports data
have been collected from (Hashimety
Kingdom of Jordan; Amman, Statistical Department, Center of Computerized
Data)*. We must stress that the period is not long
enough in econometrical point of view, and unfortunately the lack of data has
some effects on the regression results. The data before 1985 is not available,
and it is not computerized in the Jordanian statistical department, or in any
Jordanian governmental departments.
Table Four. The Distribution of the Dummy Variable
|
Year |
Value |
Vital
Events |
|
85 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
86 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
87 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
88 |
1 |
Jordan Dinar Crises 50% Devaluation |
|
89 |
1 |
The First
Intifada |
|
90 |
1 |
The Gulf
Crises |
|
91 |
1 |
The Gulf
War |
|
92 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
93 |
1 |
Oslo
Initiatives For Peace in Middle East |
|
94 |
1 |
Nothing |
|
95 |
1 |
Barcelona
Conference EU-Med initiative |
|
96 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
97 |
1 |
Jordan-
Israel Peace Treaty |
|
98 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
99 |
0 |
Nothing |
|
2000 |
1 |
The
second Intifada and instability of Middle East |
|
2001 |
1 |
The
second Intifada and instability of Middle East |
* Note that this data is not published and it
is available on CDs in this Center.
The
Main Findings and Results of the Regression
The main findings of the regression have been confirmed in the appendixes of this chapter; the regression shows the impact of the previous variables on Jordan (aggregate – disaggregate exports) and (aggregate –disaggregate imports) for the EU by single country.
A.
Aggregate Findings:
The regression has revealed that, the
independent variables have some important effects on Jordan’s total exports to
the EU markets. We can note from the appendix that, the differences in GPD - 
variable- between
Jordan and each of EU countries has a considerable relation in Jordan’s exports
to Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, and UK, because the coefficients of
this variable are significant at levels of
(0.0787),
(0.0776), (0.0729), (0.0001), and (0.0543) for these countries respectively.
The GDP of
Jordan 
has also momentous
impact on Jordanian exports to Italy, Luxembourg, and UK; the logarithm of this
variable is significant at the standard level of the regression at levels
of (0.0494), (0.0001), and (0.0199) for
these countries respectively. At the same time, the GDP of the partners country
-
- has noteworthy sound effects on Jordan’s export to
Luxembourg, where the coefficient is remarkable at (0.0655) level. The
Jordanian population variable -
- has exaggerated Jordan’s exports to Denmark, and Finland,
because the coefficients of this variable are considerable at levels of (0.0429), (0.0980) for both two countries respectively. On the other hand, the partners
population variable -
- has impacted Jordan’s exports to Denmark, Italy, and UK,
that appears clearly from the regression, where the coefficients are
significant at the standard level of the regression at (0.0332), (0.0140), and (0.0236) levels for these countries respectively.
The dummy variables -
- which present the instability of politics, and economics
situations in Jordan have shown that, they have important impact on Jordan’s
exports to each of Finland and Italy, the coefficients of these variables have
become momentous at the level of (0.0835), (0.0367) respectively. The
financial assistance and technology transfer variable -
- have also positive impact on Jordan exports to Italy, the
coefficient is significant at level of the regression at (0.0556) level. The Jordanian Dinar
exchange rate- 
- has positive impact on Jordan’s export to Finland and UK,
the coefficients are considerable at the level of (0.0583), and (0.0334) respectively for the both
countries.
We can note that, all the previous variables have no impact on Jordan’s exports to Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden in aggregate case.
The impact of the previous independent
variables on Jordan’s imports from EU countries, the regression has exposed
that, there are some important coefficients at the standard level of the
regression for some variables such as; the GDP variable of the partners -
- has exaggerated Jordan’s imports from Finland and Portugal,
at significant level of (0.0506),
(0.0015) for the both countries respectively; The
Jordan’s GDP variable -
- has affected Jordan’s imports from Austria, Finland,
Portugal, and Spain at standard levels of
(0.0059),(0.0458),(0.0232),and (0.0556) for these countries respectively.
The populations variable - 
- of Portugal, and Spain has conceited Jordan’s imports from
both countries, the coefficients of this variable are significant at (0.0384) (0.0675) levels
for the both countries respectively. On the other hand, the impact of Jordan’s
population -
- on its imports from EU countries, is recognized in case of
Italy at (0.0690) level, Portugal at (0.0008) level,
Spain at (0.0444) level, and Sweden at (0.0470) level.
The Jordanian Dinar exchange rate -
- is noteworthy in case of Jordan’s imports from Finland, and
Portugal, where the coefficients are also significant at levels of (0.0583), (0.0314) for the pervious
two countries respectively. The level of economics development 
is also noteworthy in
case of Jordan’s imports from Finland, because the set level of regression is
recognized at (0.0776) level. At the same time, the financial assistance variable -
- has affected
Jordan’s imports from Portugal at (0.0011) level. The dummy
variables -
- have not any special effects on Jordan’s imports form EU
countries. We can also note from the appendices that, Finland is the main
country that has been affected by the previous variables on its export to
Jordan. The previous independent variables have no special effects on Jordan’s
import from Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands,
Luxembourg, and UK, because the coefficients of these variables are not
significant at the typical level of the regression. These aggregate results in
Jordan’s exports-imports into the EU countries bear out our hypothesis.
B. Disaggregate Findings:
The regression results of Jordan’s exports – imports into EU markets in disaggregate- which means by specific product such as; Agriculture, Chemicals, Manufactures, Machinery and Transport Equipments, and Others for single country - have revealed that, the previous variables have affected Jordan’s exports –imports into EU markets.
The Impact of the
independent variables on Jordan’s EU Export- Import in Agriculture.
The agricultural sector has such critical value to a country’s export – import -important for the economy’s GDP- that most countries don’t allow to this sector to be completely free in international trade; the European Union Agricultural Common Policy (ACP) quite obviously illustrates this fact. The appendices of this chapter demonstrate the force of the previous variables on Jordan’s EU exports – imports in this sector by signal country.
We may remind that, Jordan’s exports in agricultural have been affected by constant variable, which appears clearly in Jordan’s exports to Austria, the standard level of the regression is significant at (0.0422) level, and also in Jordan’s exports to Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg, the standard level of the regression is significant at levels of (0.0452), (0.0917), and (0.007) for these countries respectively. In the import side, the agricultural sector has not been affected by the constant variable. But we can find that, Germany has exception, because the constant coefficient is considerable at (0,0640) level.
The impact of 
variable show that,
it has some effects on Jordan’s exports in this sector, the regression results
have permitted that, this variable is well-organized in Jordan’s exports to
Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, and Greece, the coefficients of this variable are
significant at (0.0655), (0.0795), (0.0833), and (0.0310) levels
for these countries respectively, this variable has no effects in Jordan’s
agricultural imports from EU countries, and it is not considerable. However,
Germany has also an exclusion, which appears from the regression, it is clearly
that, the coefficient is significant at (0.0822) level.
The regression has also publicized that, the GDP of Jordan- 
- has some major results in Jordan’s agricultural exports to EU
countries, these significant results have appeared in case of Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden; the coefficients of this variable are
remarkable at (0.0507), (0.0507), (0.0871), (0.0001) and (0.0997) levels for these countries respectively. In the import side, we
discover that, this variable has not affected Jordan’s agricultural imports
form EU countries. But Jordan’s- Greece agricultural imports has un exception,
because the coefficient of this variable is significant at (0.0994)
level.
The partner’s population -
- variable has positive effects on Jordan’s agricultural
exports to Austria, and Belgium, the coefficients of this variable for the two
countries are considerable at (0.0387) and (0.0387) levels respectively.
But this variable has not any effects on the imports side, because the
coefficients of the previous variables are not considerable at the standard
level of the regression.
The impact of -
, Jordan’s population variable on Jordan’s agricultural
exports has revealed that, the coefficient of this variable is significant in
Jordan’s exports to some EU countries such as; Denmark at (0.0343) level,
Germany at (0.0690) level, and Greece at (0.0217) level. At the same, the
coefficients of this variable are also significant on the import side, as
confirmed in Finland, Germany, and Greece, at (0.0557), (0.0693) and (0.0217) levels
for these countries respectively. Jordan’s Dinar exchange rate 
has not great effects
on Jordan’s exports – imports into EU markets in the agricultural sector; the
regression has approved that, Jordan’s Dinar exchange rate has noteworthy results
in Jordan’s agricultural exports to Greece, and Jordan’s imports from
Luxembourg, the coefficients of this variable are considerable at (0.0604) and, (0.0087)
levels for both countries respectively.
We can note down from the regression that, -
-the financial assistance and technology transfer have not a
remarkable relations on Jordan’s exports- imports in agricultural sector into
EU markets. The unique momentous result has been exposed in case of Greece,
where the coefficient is significant at (0.0857) level. We
also can note down that, 
variable has affected
Jordan’s agricultural exports to Denmark and Luxembourg, because the coefficients of this variable are
considerable at (0.0523), and (0.0010) levels for both two countries respectively. On the other side, this
variable has no large effects on Jordan’s agricultural imports from EU
countries. At the same time, the Dummy variable has not any effects on Jordan’s
agricultural exports-imports into EU markets, the exception has been found in
Jordan’s imports from Greece, because the coefficient is momentous at (0.0782) level.
The general conclusion of
the regression in agricultural sector have exemplified that; on the export
side, the previous independent variables have affected Jordan’s agricultural
exports to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden. Jordan’s agricultural exports to the other
EU countries have not been exaggerated by the previous independent variables. On the import side, the previous independent
variables have affected Jordan’s agricultural imports from Finland, Germany,
Greece, and Luxembourg. At the same time, all the previous independent
variables have no effects on Jordan’s exports- imports in agricultural sector
in case of some EU countries, such as France, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands,
Spain, Portugal, and UK.
The Impact of the
independent variables on Jordan’s Export- Import in Chemicals.
The regression results have verified that, all the previous
variables have no important effects on Jordan’s chemical exports to EU
countries, because we don’t find any significant coefficient in the standard
level of the regression. Maybe these results are related with the size of
Jordan’s exports in this sector to EU countries. The figures of Jordan’s
exports to some EU countries such as Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden are insufficient in econometric views.
On the other hand, Jordan’s imports from EU countries in this sector have been
affected by some variables. We may memorandum from the regression that, some
variables have major impact on Jordan’s imports in this sector such as; the
Constant variable has momentous impact on Jordan’s chemicals imports from each of Italy,
Ireland, Netherlands, and Portugal, because the coefficients of this variable
are considerable at (0.0133),
(0.0337), (0.0041), (0.0791) levels for these countries respectively.
The -
- variable has not any special effects on Jordan’s chemical imports from EU
countries, but the exception has found in case of Jordan’s –Netherlands, where
the coefficient is significant at (0.0204) level. While, 
variable has some
effects on Jordan’s imports from EU countries in this sector, this variable has
affected Jordan’s imports from UK, Finland, and Netherlands. We can locate
that, the coefficients of this variable are imperative at (0.0540), (0.0911), and (0.0999) levels
for these countries respectively.
Jordan’s exports – imports in chemical trading sector have not been
affected by -
-variable, the exclusion of that in Jordan’s chemical exports to UK,
the coefficient is significant at (0.0564) level. In the other side, 
variable has not
affected Jordan’s chemical exports. In the imports side, we may observe from
the regression that, this variable has impacted Jordan’s imports from each of
UK, Ireland, Portugal, Netherlands, and Italy. Because the coefficients of this
variable are considerable at (0.0764),
(0.0164), (0.0637), (0.0030) and (0.0402) for
these countries respectively.
The
regression findings have indicated that, Jordan’s Dinar exchange rate 
has no effects on
Jordan’s exports- imports into EU markets in chemical sector; the exclusion has
been found in Jordan’s export to UK, because the coefficient is significant at (0.0519) level.
At the same time, the- 
-the economics
development gap between Jordan and each of EU countries has also no sound
effects on Jordan’s exports- imports in this sector, the exception has found in
Jordan’s- Austria imports, the coefficient is considerable at (0.0336) level, and also in Jordan’s- Netherlands imports it is considerable
at (0.0293) level.
The 
variable has some
effects on Jordan’s exports in this sector to each of Austria, UK, and Sweden,
the coefficients of this variable is noteworthy at (0.0469), (0.0390) and (0.0590) levels
for these countries respectively. The regression has exemplified that, the Dummy variable has also no effects on
this sector, the exemption is that in Jordan’s – Austria imports, where the
coefficient is significant at (0.0425) level. The general
termination about this sector is that, the previous variables are not significant
in Jordan’s exports- imports into some EU markets like; Belgium, France,
Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain.
The Impact of the
independent variables on Jordan’s Export- Import in Manufactures.
The regression has explained that, Jordan’s
exports- imports have been affected by the previous variables, these details
appear clearly in the appendices. The appendices explain that, the coefficients
of the constant variable are momentous in
Jordan’s manufactures exports to Belgium, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and UK, at
levels of (0.0259), (0.0285), (0.0214), (0.0346)
and (0.0839) for these countries
respectively. At the same time, the constant variable has affected Jordan’s manufactures imports from France, Ireland, Greece, Netherlands, and
Luxembourg, the coefficients are also momentous at (0.0123), (0.0610), (0.0978),
(0.0885)
and (0.0039) levels for these countries respectively.
The
- 
- variable has no essential sound effects on Jordan’s manufactures
exports into EU markets. Jordan’s-Portugal
has an exception, where the coefficient is significant at (0.0364) level. In import side, this
variable also has no important effects on Jordan’s imports from EU countries,
some exceptions appear in Jordan’s imports from France and Germany, where the
coefficients are significant at (0.0123) and (0.0798) levels for both countries respectively.
We can note down from the regression that,
the -
- variable has not important impacts on Jordan’s exports to
EU markets, with the exception of Jordan’s imports from Portugal, where the
coefficient of this variable is considerable at (0.0452) level. On the import side, we can locate that; this variable has
noteworthy effects on Jordan’s Austria manufactures imports, because the coefficient
is considerable at (0.0063) level.
The regression has also approved that, -
- variable has no vital effects on Jordan’s manufactures
export, the exclusion is in Germany case, where the coefficient is considerable
at (0.0563) level. But this variable has some effects on manufactures imports,
we can find this impact on Jordan’s imports form Luxembourg and Germany,
because the coefficients of these variables are significant at (0.0000) and (0.0222) levels
for these countries respectively.
The regression results have shown that, the
-
- variable has affected Jordan’s manufactures exports to
Belgium at (0.0259) level and Portugal at (0.0354) level.
At the same time, the coefficients of this variable are momentous in Jordan’s
imports from Italy at (0.0564)
level, Greece at (0.0160) level, and
Netherlands at (0.0378) level.
We may note that -
- variable has no crucial impact on Jordan’s exports –
imports in this sector into the EU markets, the exception is that in Jordan’s
exports to Austria, where the coefficient is significant at (0.0983) level,
and in Jordan’s exports to Portugal, where the coefficient is also significant
at (0.0311) level. In the imports side, this variable has affected Jordan’s
imports from France at (0.0017) level.
The -
-variable has not major effects in Jordan’s manufactures
imports from EU. But France has an exception because the coefficient is
considerable at (0.0247)
level.
From the results of the regression, we may
locate that, the -
-variable, which means the differences in economic
development levels, has no sound effects on Jordan’s manufactures exports –
imports. The main exception is that, Jordan’s exports to Germany, the
coefficient is noteworthy at (0.0656) level. On the imports side, Jordan’s imports from France, where the
coefficient is also noteworthy at (0.0017) level.
The Dummy
variables are also have some momentous special effects on manufactures exports-
imports into EU markets, these effects have appeared in Jordan’s exports to
Germany, the coefficient is considerable at (0.0763) level, and to Portugal at (0.0630) level. While on the import side, the
main significant result has been found in Jordan’s imports from France in this
sector, where the coefficient is significant at (0.0258) level.
The main
general conclusion of the regression in manufactures sector explain that, the
previous variables have vital impact on Jordan’s exports to Germany and Portugal.
In the imports side, the main country has been affected by the previous
variables is France. But these variables have no impact on Jordan’s exports to
France, Netherlands and Spain. At the same time, they also have no impact on
Jordan’s imports from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Portugal, Spain and
Sweden. Some insufficient figures in
econometric views (statistical package) have appeared in Jordan’s manufactures
exports to Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, and Sweden,
because Jordan’s exports to these countries is not significant. We have
mentioned above that, Jordan’s export to EU countries is not more than 3.5% of
Jordan’s total exports.
The Impact of the independent variables on Jordan’s Export- Import in Machinery and Equipment.
The regression has permitted that, all the previous variables have
affected Jordan’s machinery-equipment exports to EU, the most important effects
of these variables have found in Jordan’s exports to Belgium, the regression
show that, the coefficients of these variables are significant in each of; the Constant variable at (0.0172) level, the 
variable at (0.0211)
level, the 
variable at (0.0145) level, the 
variable at (0.0171) level, the 
variable at (0.0123) level,
the 
variable at (0.0110) level,
the 
variable at ( 0.0131) level,
and the Dummy at (0.0293) level.
The coefficients of the
previous independent variables are also significant in Jordan’s exports to
Finland, because 
variable is significant at (0.0371) level; 
at (0.0462) level; 
at (0.0763) level;
at (0.0342) level,
and 
at (0.0357) level.
The same results can be found in imports side, the coefficients of the previous
independent variables are considerable in Jordan’s machinery and equipments
imports from Denmark; where the Constant is significant at (0.0192) level, the 
at (0.0296) level, the 
at (0.0229) level, 
at (0.0736) level,
and 
at (0.0420) level.
The previous variables have also affected Jordan’s imports from Germany; the
coefficients are noteworthy in each of 
variable at (0.0798) level,
at (0.0022) level,
and the Dummy at (0.0820) level.
The coefficients of the Constant, and 
variables are
considerable in Jordan’s machinery imports from Ireland at (0.0917) and, (0.0634) levels for the both
variables respectively. The 
has affected Jordan’s machinery and equipment imports from
Luxemburg, and Portugal, the coefficients of this variable are considerable at (0.0343) and (0.0581) levels for both countries
respectively. The previous independent
variables have a vital effects on Jordan’s imports from Netherlands – the
regression results show that, the coefficient of the Constant variable is momentous at (0.0277) level, the 
at (0.0436) level, the 
at (0.0354) level, the 
at (0.0384) level,
the 
at (0.0471) level, the 
at (0.0710) level,
the 
at (0.0499) level
and the Dummy at (0.0377) level.
The main general
conclusion of the regression in machinery and equipment sector show that, the
previous variables have no effects on Jordan’s exports to Ireland and
Germany. The figures are insufficient
in case of most EU countries such as; Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, Greece,
Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK.
The figures are also
insufficient in case of Jordan’s imports from Belgium and France. And also the
previous variables have no effects on Jordan’s machinery and equipment exports
to Ireland and Germany. The previous variables have also no effects on imports
from Austria, Finland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and UK.
The Impact of the independent variables on Jordan’s Export- Import in Others.
The regression results have exposed that; the independent variables
have no sound effects on Jordan’s exports to EU countries in others, because the
coefficients of these variables are not noteworthy at the typical level of the
regression. We are able to find that,
Jordan’s–Austria imports in this sector has been affected by the Constant at (0.0322) level, and by 
at
(0.0591) level, and by 
at (0.0685)
level. At the same time, the Dummy, the Constant, and
the 
variables
have affected Jordan’s imports from
Finland, because the coefficients of these variables are considerable at levels
of (0.0510), (0.0680), and (0.0401) respectively.
This sector has also been affected by the previous variables in
Jordan’s imports from Ireland, we find that, the Constant variable is significant at
(0.0350) level, the 
at (0.0226), the 
at (0.0023) and
the 
at (0.0443) level.
Some results have also exposed that, Jordan’s imports from UK have been
affected by the Constant, and by 
, which appears clearly from the considerable coefficients of
these variables at (0.0634) and, (0.0567) levels.
Finally 
has affected Jordan’s imports in this sector from Italy, where the
coefficient is considerable at (0.0495) level.
Conclusion
Depending on the definition by Balassa for gross trade creation, GTC will refer to the total increase in trade among members of a trading community brought about through integration, regardless of whether the additional trade policies replace domestic production, or whether they replace non-member export. We may note that, the effect of integration on Jordan’s economy has been negative, since the integration has created trade diversion; while in the long run it could be positive due to trade creation. We can also conclude that, all the previous independent variables have affected Jordan’s exports-imports into EU countries or markets. The regression has approved that; Finland is the main country that has been affected by the previous variables on its export to Jordan. The previous independent variables have no special effects on Jordan’s import from Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and UK, because the coefficients of these variables are not significant at the standard level of the regression. These aggregate results in Jordan’s exports-imports into the EU countries bear out our hypothesis.
References
Aitkin, N. (1973): The Effect of the EEC and EFTA on the European Trade: a Temporal Cross-Section Analysis. The American Economic Review, December 1973, pp.881-892.
Aitken, N. (1976): A Cross Sectional Study of EEC Trade with the Association of African Countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.5, November, No.4, 1976, Pp.425-433.
Balassa, B (1965): The Theory of Economic Integration. Second Edition, Watford, Herts. London.
Brada, J and Mendez, J (1985): Economic Integration Among Developed, Developing Countries and Centrally Planned Economies: Comparative Analysis .The Review of Economic and Statistics, Vol.67. 1985.pp.549-560.
Delegation of the European Commission in Jordan. (1999): Annual Report, 1999, Pp.17-30.
Delegation of the European Commission in Jordan. (2000): Annual Report, 2000, Pp.10-17.
Delegation of the European Commission in Jordan. (2001): Annual Report, 2001, Pp.12-20.
Hashimety Kingdom of Jordan. (2002): Jordan Central Bank, Annual Report, 2002. p.18.
Hashimety Kingdom of Jordan. (1999): Department of Statistics; Statistical Year Book, Issue No.50, 1999.Pp.509-550.
Hashimety Kingdom of Jordan. (2000): Department of Statistics; Statistical Year Book, Issue No.51, 2000.Pp.505-508.
Hashimety Kingdom of Jordan. (2001): Department of Statistics; Statistical Year Book, Issue No.52, 53, 2001.Pp.500-530.
Hashimety Kingdom of Jordan; Amman, Statistical Department, Center of Computerized Data. (CDs)
International Monterey Fund:(2000). International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 2000.
International Monterey Fund:(2001). International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 2001.
Pelzman, Joseph.(1977): Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Counocel of Matual Econmoic Assistance . American Economic Review , Septmebr , Vo.67,No.4,1977, Pp.721.
Index
1. Jordan Export to Austria
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemicals |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1850 |
0.0422* |
0.7736 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2098 |
0.2171 |
0.4981 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2009 |
0.0507* |
0.5894 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7050 |
0.0387* |
0.9364 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.1763 |
0.1126 |
0.5112 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4163 |
0.4242 |
0.5400 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5845 |
0.7598 |
0.3499 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4284 |
0.8378 |
0.5248 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.4022 |
0.7691 |
0.8909 |
- |
- |
- |
Note: The * sign
indicates that the coefficient of the variable is significant at (0.01)
Level and the (-) indicates that the figures are
insufficient in Econometric Views.
2. Jordan Import from Austria
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemicals |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.8891 |
0.7377 |
0.4427 |
0.4929 |
0.2556 |
0.0322* |
|
|
0.7856 |
0.7029 |
0.1602 |
0.2316 |
0.4223 |
0.0591* |
|
|
0.0059* |
0.7619 |
0.4525 |
0.0063* |
0.8241 |
0.7332 |
|
|
0.5826 |
0.7046 |
0.1040 |
0.3211 |
0.3231 |
0.0685* |
|
|
0.5211 |
0.8002 |
0.3201 |
0.1158 |
0.4490 |
0.7836 |
|
|
0.3121 |
0.6108 |
0.8776 |
0.0938* |
0.7877 |
0.2507 |
|
|
0.2388 |
0.9985 |
0.0649* |
0.6652 |
0.1361 |
0.4516 |
|
|
0.6799 |
0.6970 |
0.0336* |
0.6619 |
0.1042 |
0.6849 |
|
Dummy |
0.1543 |
0.3671 |
0.0425* |
0.1793 |
0.1269 |
0.8725 |
Note that, the
independent variables are;
: is constant
: is the logarithm of the dollar value of
Jordan GDP.
:
is the logarithm of the dollar value of each EU country’s GDP.
: is the logarithm of the population in
Jordan.
: is the logarithm of the population in
each EU country
: is the logarithm of
the politics and economic situations
(dummy
variable).
: is the logarithm of
the financial assistance from each EU country.
: is the logarithm of
the Jordanian Dinar exchange rate by $.
: is the differences in GDP between Jordan
and each EU country.
3. Jordan Export to Belgium
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.3487 |
0.0452* |
0.7854 |
0.0259* |
0.0172* |
- |
|
|
0.8579 |
0.2171 |
0.2845 |
0.1470 |
0.0211* |
- |
|
|
0.9476 |
0.0507* |
0.1072 |
0.9323 |
0.0145* |
- |
|
|
0.6096 |
0.0387* |
0.7866 |
0.6379 |
0.0171* |
- |
|
|
0.6403 |
0.1126 |
0.8931 |
0.0834* |
0.0123* |
- |
|
|
0.7521 |
0.4242 |
0.4583 |
0.7917 |
0.0131* |
- |
|
|
0.5230 |
0.7598 |
0.6119 |
0.4332 |
0.0110* |
- |
|
|
0.4028 |
0.5378 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.5863 |
0.7691 |
0.2603 |
0.8494 |
0.0293* |
- |
4.Jordan Import from Belgium
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.2554 |
0.4346 |
0.5994 |
- |
0.1180 |
- |
|
|
0.4644 |
0.3399 |
0.7155 |
- |
0.3386 |
- |
|
|
0.6629 |
0.9874 |
0.8185 |
- |
0.2445 |
- |
|
|
0.3496 |
0.3662 |
0.5905 |
- |
0.2841 |
- |
|
|
0.3347 |
0.2900 |
0.9369 |
- |
0.1801 |
- |
|
|
0.7862 |
0.6274 |
0.5907 |
- |
0.6804 |
- |
|
|
0.2859 |
0.5967 |
0.3701 |
- |
0.1310 |
- |
|
|
0.4033 |
0.6236 |
0.6284 |
- |
0.2929 |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.4105 |
0.3831 |
0.5132 |
- |
0.2229 |
- |
5.Jordan Export to Denmark
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1520 |
0.0917* |
- |
- |
- |
0.8210 |
|
|
0.1088 |
0.0795* |
- |
- |
- |
0.6003 |
|
|
0.1479 |
0.0871* |
- |
- |
- |
0.7677 |
|
|
0.0332* |
0.5253 |
- |
- |
- |
0.6582 |
|
|
0.0429* |
0.0343* |
- |
- |
- |
0.6151 |
|
|
0.1680 |
0.1003 |
- |
- |
- |
0.7834 |
|
|
0.7033 |
0.5043 |
- |
- |
- |
0.5916 |
|
|
0.0787* |
0.0523* |
- |
- |
- |
0.6163 |
|
Dummy |
0.4702 |
0.4497 |
- |
- |
- |
0.8229 |
6.Jordan Import from Denmark
|
Independent Variables |
Total
Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.8694 |
0.9069 |
0.1672 |
0.6896 |
0.0192* |
0.6476 |
|
|
0.6640 |
0.6729 |
0.5600 |
0.6835 |
0.0296* |
0.4130 |
|
|
0.6514 |
0.2936 |
0.6574 |
0.9291 |
0.3229 |
0.5029 |
|
|
0.5493 |
0.6929 |
0.9685 |
0.6021 |
0.8878 |
0.8629 |
|
|
0.3136 |
0.9102 |
0.0230* |
0.3120 |
0.0229* |
0.2771 |
|
|
0.3811 |
0.2703 |
0.5622 |
0.8872 |
0.7768 |
0.3418 |
|
|
0.9469 |
0.4831 |
0.5594 |
0.8184 |
0.0736* |
09451 |
|
|
0.8352 |
0.8782 |
0.6449 |
0.7330 |
0.0420* |
0.8062 |
|
Dummy |
0.5228 |
0.6891 |
0.6563 |
0.9420 |
0.4671 |
0.8042 |
7.Jordan Export to Finland
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.0381* |
0.1225 |
- |
- |
0.2296 |
- |
|
|
0.1203 |
0.8798 |
- |
- |
0.0371* |
- |
|
|
0.1305 |
0.6026 |
- |
- |
0.0462* |
- |
|
|
0.1833 |
0.2205 |
- |
- |
0.0763* |
- |
|
|
0.0980* |
0.1818 |
- |
- |
0.1865 |
- |
|
|
0.0583* |
0.9862 |
- |
- |
0.0342* |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0776* |
0.8498 |
- |
- |
0.0357* |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.0835* |
0.3189 |
- |
- |
0.1002 |
- |
8.Jordan Import from Finland
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1283 |
0.3402 |
0.1163 |
0.1162 |
0.4374 |
0.0510* |
|
|
0.0506* |
0.4855 |
0.2524 |
0.1365 |
0.9964 |
0.9190 |
|
|
0.0458* |
0.5493 |
0.0911* |
0.3654 |
0.8716 |
0.6306 |
|
|
0.1394 |
0.7972 |
0.0463* |
0.3216 |
0.8620 |
0.3395 |
|
|
0.6456 |
0.0557* |
0.3304 |
0.2221 |
0.3445 |
0.7390 |
|
|
0.0415* |
0.7246 |
0.6165 |
0.2361 |
0.7436 |
0.0680* |
|
|
0.0224* |
0.9378 |
0.1617 |
0.6317 |
0.9985 |
0.2839 |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.2201 |
0.3783 |
0.4997 |
0.3201 |
0.8928 |
0.0401* |
9. Jordan Export to France
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1073 |
- |
-- |
0.1140 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4938 |
- |
- |
0.3169 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9201 |
- |
- |
0.6045 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8040 |
- |
- |
0.6808 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6705 |
- |
- |
0.2266 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3803 |
- |
- |
0.4244 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4979 |
- |
- |
0.2989 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3424 |
- |
- |
0.3004 |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.5566 |
- |
- |
0.4473 |
- |
|
10. Jordan Import from France
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.4962 |
0.8130 |
0.1176 |
0.0123* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9737 |
0.4854 |
0.5840 |
0.0123* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8242 |
0.8114 |
0.5059 |
0.2368 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6428 |
0.3937 |
0.9504 |
0.3145 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7537 |
0.4981 |
0.5728 |
0.1235 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8225 |
0.2855 |
0.2837 |
0.0125* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3893 |
0.4580 |
0.4895 |
0.0247* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4184 |
0.3440 |
0.7206 |
0.0017* |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.5456 |
0.2957 |
0.5123 |
0.0258* |
- |
- |
11. Jordan Export to Italy
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.7512 |
0.1893 |
0.1322 |
0.0285* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4335 |
0.1317 |
0.3367 |
0.4230 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0494* |
0.4100 |
0.5393 |
0.9110 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0140* |
0.1328 |
0.3346 |
0.3863 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7042 |
0.2136 |
0.2657 |
0.8434 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3033 |
0.2602 |
0.6557 |
0.1531 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0556* |
0.7912 |
0.4875 |
0.7065 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0729* |
0.3626 |
0.8430 |
0.3586 |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.0367* |
0.1946 |
0.7159 |
0.1345 |
- |
- |
12. Jordan Import from Italy
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.6416 |
0.3071 |
0.0133* |
0.8494 |
0.1676 |
0.6176 |
|
|
0.1613 |
0.3417 |
0.2263 |
0.1198 |
0.2760 |
0.7378 |
|
|
0.8922 |
0.4497 |
0.6400 |
0.9626 |
0.0877 |
0.9554 |
|
|
0.9437 |
0.2669 |
0.5784 |
0.6564 |
0.7051 |
0.9675 |
|
|
0.0692* |
0.5128 |
0.0402* |
0.0564* |
0.6525 |
0.7487 |
|
|
0.6506 |
0.6817 |
0.1288 |
0.8324 |
0.8967 |
0.7872 |
|
|
0.6511 |
0.7961 |
0.1841 |
0.5724 |
0.2316 |
0.7009 |
|
|
- |
0.9807 |
0.5033 |
- |
0.1068 |
0.0495* |
|
Dummy |
0.8772 |
0.2459 |
0.4012 |
0.8806 |
0.4333 |
0.8818 |
13. Jordan Export to Ireland
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.8330 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8358 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5041 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7396 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8657 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9796 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
-- |
- |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
-- |
-- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.6390 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
14. Jordan Import from Ireland
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.5777 |
0.8329 |
0.0337* |
0.0610* |
0.0917* |
0.0350* |
|
|
0.9132 |
0.7178 |
0.2138 |
0.3366 |
0.5333 |
0.0226* |
|
|
0.5626 |
0.4330 |
0.3253 |
0.3571 |
0.3756 |
0.3002 |
|
|
0.2908 |
0.9720 |
0.8596 |
0.2548 |
0.2828 |
0.0023* |
|
|
0.3072 |
0.7569 |
0.0164* |
0.0426* |
0.0634* |
0.0443* |
|
|
0.3392 |
0.5785 |
0.4724 |
0.5136 |
0.1146 |
0.8771 |
|
|
0.2283 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.1997 |
0.8612 |
0.3254 |
0.7475 |
0.1083 |
0.0004* |
15. Jordan Export to Germany
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.3779 |
0.8558 |
0.8140 |
0.0214* |
0.1291 |
- |
|
|
0.2919 |
0.7509 |
0.8503 |
0.1111 |
0.1480 |
- |
|
|
0.2185 |
0.5031 |
0.3202 |
0.5324 |
0.3172 |
- |
|
|
0.1286 |
0.6677 |
0.1151 |
0.0563* |
0.2457 |
- |
|
|
0.2945 |
0.4534 |
0.6908 |
0.2363 |
0.1546 |
- |
|
|
0.3248 |
0.7015 |
0.5183 |
0.2222 |
0.8077 |
- |
|
|
0.1714 |
0.4131 |
0.1691 |
0.1014 |
0.5235 |
- |
|
|
0.6930 |
0.2134 |
0.3407 |
0.0656* |
0.3031 |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.1074 |
0.6552 |
0.0747 |
0.0763* |
0.5026 |
- |
16. Jordan Import from Germany
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.6703 |
0.0640* |
0.5305 |
0.8778 |
0.6093 |
0.7768 |
|
|
0.7982 |
0.0822* |
0.6615 |
0.9576 |
0.0798* |
0.9120 |
|
|
0.5748 |
0.1125 |
0.7532 |
0.5508 |
0.2932 |
0.7829 |
|
|
0.7632 |
0.3999 |
0.2703 |
0.6993 |
0.0022* |
0.8232 |
|
|
0.6448 |
0.0693* |
0.6947 |
0.7853 |
0.4866 |
0.8391 |
|
|
0.8182 |
0.3162 |
0.3115 |
0.5719 |
0.2265 |
0.2566 |
|
|
0.7961 |
0.3144 |
0.5481 |
0.6690 |
0.5532 |
0.5541 |
|
|
0.6830 |
0.1711 |
0.4397 |
0.5081 |
0.1730 |
0.2213 |
|
Dummy |
0.5045 |
0.3809 |
0.5907 |
0.4417 |
0.0820* |
0.7529 |
17. Jordan Export to Greece
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.7547 |
- |
0.3865 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9817 |
- |
0.7367 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3130 |
- |
0.3118 |
- |
|
- |
|
|
0.5968 |
- |
0.8895 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8396 |
- |
0.7336 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6345 |
- |
0.7283 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9057 |
- |
0.7101 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2040 |
- |
0.7022 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.5193 |
- |
0.2428 |
- |
- |
- |
18. Jordan Import from Greece
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.8196 |
0.0431* |
0.1720 |
0.0978* |
0.3066 |
0.6782 |
|
|
0.7807 |
0.0310* |
0.3249 |
0.2073 |
0.7273 |
0.8137 |
|
|
0.8697 |
0.0994* |
0.5957 |
0.1899 |
0.3115 |
0.8993 |
|
|
0.9321 |
0.2058 |
0.8637 |
0.8476 |
0.4563 |
0.8416 |
|
|
0.4222 |
0.0217* |
0.4216 |
0.0160* |
0.7001 |
0.7956 |
|
|
0.6941 |
0.0604* |
0.7269 |
0.9286 |
0.6124 |
0.5420 |
|
|
0.7259 |
0.0857* |
0.7123 |
0.8198 |
0.5663 |
0.7824 |
|
|
0.9371 |
0.3656 |
0.6363 |
0.7730 |
0.3646 |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.8635 |
0.0782* |
0.6590 |
0.7178 |
0.5305 |
0.7682 |
19. Jordan Export to Netherlands
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.0101* |
0.6064 |
- |
0.1688 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6024 |
0.7621 |
- |
0.1010 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9631 |
0.7285 |
- |
0.4193 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5348 |
0.7707 |
- |
0.8716 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.1532 |
0.7451 |
- |
0.1141 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7378 |
0.7451 |
- |
0.1945 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9403 |
0.6545 |
- |
0.1515 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3164 |
0.7256 |
- |
0.1732 |
|
- |
|
Dummy |
0.9091 |
0.7957 |
- |
0.2594 |
- |
- |
20. Jordan Import from Netherlands
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.8976 |
0.9875 |
0.0041* |
0.0885* |
0.0277* |
0.1433 |
|
|
0.7218 |
0.7873 |
0.0204* |
0.4920 |
0.0436* |
0.9934 |
|
|
0.8026 |
0.8626 |
0.0999* |
0.5444 |
0.0354* |
0.6610 |
|
|
0.9006 |
0.9148 |
0.1033 |
0.4025 |
0.1165 |
0.3425 |
|
|
0.6505 |
0.7519 |
0.0030* |
0.0378* |
0.0384* |
0.1647 |
|
|
0.6227 |
0.6803 |
0.2379 |
0.5210 |
0.0471* |
0.9699 |
|
|
0.8917 |
0.9337 |
0.0293* |
0.2842 |
0.0710* |
0.4785 |
|
|
0.7450 |
0.7997 |
0.7631 |
0.5565 |
0.0499* |
0.9630 |
|
Dummy |
0.7775 |
0.8253 |
0.6471 |
0.7561 |
0.0377* |
0.8328 |
21. Jordan Export to Luxembourg
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.3660 |
0.3669 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0655* |
0.0655* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0001* |
0.0001* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2988 |
0.2988 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5300 |
0.5300 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9630 |
0.9630 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0001* |
0.0010* |
- |
-- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5430 |
0.5430 |
- |
- |
-- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.4387 |
0.4387 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
22. Jordan Import from Luxembourg
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.9937 |
0.0070* |
0.8833 |
0.0039* |
0.5859 |
- |
|
|
0.7994 |
0.3088 |
0.7722 |
0.7101 |
0.3314 |
- |
|
|
0.2951 |
0.1817 |
0.9520 |
0.6792 |
0.5659 |
- |
|
|
0.6703 |
0.2355 |
0.9383 |
0.0000* |
0.6023 |
- |
|
|
0.9124 |
0.9464 |
0.8153 |
0.3421 |
0.3188 |
- |
|
|
0.9124 |
0.4911 |
0.9187 |
0.1701 |
0.0343* |
- |
|
|
0.4258 |
0.6314 |
0.6339 |
0.2532 |
0.4112 |
- |
|
|
0.7153 |
0.0087* |
0.8484 |
0.9604 |
0.4269 |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.6043 |
0.1524 |
0.9689 |
0.1695 |
0.8554 |
- |
23. Jordan Export to Portugal
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.4040 |
0.7552 |
- |
0.0346* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6776 |
0.4792 |
- |
0.0364* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6023 |
0.5564 |
- |
0.0452* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.5348 |
0.4262 |
- |
0.2500 |
|
- |
|
|
0.6521 |
0.6336 |
- |
0.0354* |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9733 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6560 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7203 |
0.3689 |
- |
0.0311* |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.4153 |
0.3656 |
- |
0.0630* |
- |
- |
24. Jordan Import from Portugal
|
Independent Variables |
Total
Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.0014* |
0.8667 |
0.0791* |
0.3464 |
0.2296 |
- |
|
|
0.0015* |
0.5847 |
0.2517 |
0.3266 |
0.1905 |
- |
|
|
0.0232* |
0.8527 |
0.3424 |
0.2812 |
0.1698 |
- |
|
|
0.0384* |
0.7769 |
0.8554 |
0.4298 |
0.5481 |
- |
|
|
0.0008* |
0.5855 |
0.0637* |
0.5367 |
0.2548 |
- |
|
|
0.0011* |
0.6309 |
0.1910 |
0.8531 |
0.0581* |
- |
|
|
0.4662 |
0.9674 |
0.4811 |
0.2445 |
0.3256 |
- |
|
|
0.0314* |
0.8146 |
0.7041 |
0.9419 |
0.8811 |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.1234 |
0.9420 |
0.5020 |
0.3696 |
0.3264 |
- |
25. Jordan Export to Spain
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1179 |
- |
- |
0.2633 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4722 |
- |
- |
0.4727 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.6676 |
- |
- |
0.3100 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4726 |
- |
- |
0.5116 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2405 |
- |
- |
0.4282 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3128 |
- |
- |
0.3632 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.9051 |
- |
- |
0.5908 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2831 |
- |
- |
0.3578 |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.2136 |
- |
- |
0.3216 |
- |
- |
26. Jordan Import from Spain
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.0879* |
0.9194 |
0.1695 |
0.4229 |
0.3122 |
0.9747 |
|
|
0.1220 |
0.9396 |
0.3047 |
0.4899 |
0.3078 |
0.1412 |
|
|
0.0556* |
0.3459 |
0.2507 |
0.6523 |
0.8986 |
0.2801 |
|
|
0.0675* |
0.6346 |
0.2507 |
0.2080 |
0.7762 |
0.8039 |
|
|
0.0442* |
0.8366 |
0.8912 |
0.2926 |
0.2908 |
0.2762 |
|
|
0.4815 |
0.9176 |
0.1581 |
0.6793 |
0.7816 |
0.8422 |
|
|
0.7557 |
0.7907 |
0.7951 |
0.8766 |
0.7819 |
0.2944 |
|
|
0.4379 |
0.9662 |
0.8485 |
0.6875 |
0.4858 |
0.3019 |
|
Dummy |
0.7788 |
0.5363 |
0.9758 |
0.9453 |
0.6192 |
0.2034 |
27. Jordan Export to Sweden
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.3455 |
0.4050 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7251 |
0.0833* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.4321 |
0.0997* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.3545 |
0.2991 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2313 |
0.1451 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.8642 |
0.2618 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.7722 |
0.5912 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
0.2919 |
0.4742 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dummy |
0.2222 |
0.2432 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
28. Jordan Import from Sweden
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.1927 |
0.4499 |
0.2818 |
0.6866 |
0.9553 |
0.3340 |
|
|
0.3952 |
0.8595 |
0.1214 |
0.7577 |
0.7045 |
0.3007 |
|
|
0.3128 |
0.4307 |
0.1079 |
0.3951 |
0.9715 |
0.4171 |
|
|
0.3505 |
0.5293 |
0.1354 |
0.3810 |
0.1573 |
0.3634 |
|
|
0.0470* |
0.7655 |
0.1132 |
0.1316 |
0.7167 |
0.3150 |
|
|
0.8244 |
0.5956 |
0.0590* |
0.6223 |
0.8397 |
0.3638 |
|
|
0.9765 |
0.8873 |
0.1848 |
0.3396 |
0.9979 |
0.3288 |
|
|
0.1982 |
0.3976 |
0.1049 |
0.9772 |
0.9321 |
0.3586 |
|
Dummy |
0.6474 |
0.9648 |
0.2221 |
0.3729 |
0.9137 |
0.3134 |
29.Jordan Export to UK
|
Independent Variables |
Total Export |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.0107* |
0.1987 |
0.1205 |
0.0839* |
0.3545 |
0.8837 |
|
|
0.1508 |
0.4577 |
0.2774 |
0.7558 |
0.6110 |
0.9021 |
|
|
0.0199* |
0.3475 |
0.0540* |
0.3947 |
0.6156 |
0.9963 |
|
|
0.0236* |
0.5822 |
0.0564* |
0.3247 |
0.6006 |
0.8860 |
|
|
0.3035 |
0.5822 |
0.0532* |
0.5846 |
0.8887 |
0.8431 |
|
|
0.0208* |
0.7701 |
0.0390* |
0.4671 |
0.9205 |
0.8482 |
|
|
0.0543* |
0.8476 |
0.1481 |
0.5144 |
- |
- |
|
|
0.0334* |
0.3495 |
0.0519* |
0.4887 |
0.6951 |
0.9209 |
|
Dummy |
0.1234 |
0.8056 |
0.1006 |
0.5466 |
0.5883 |
0.8770 |
30. Jordan Import from UK
|
Independent Variables |
Total Import |
Agricultural |
Chemical |
Manufactures |
Machinery |
Others |
|
Constant |
0.6222 |
0.223 |
0.2183 |
0.8204 |
0.1658 |
0.0634* |
|
|
0.2588 |
0.3313 |
0.7087 |
0.7745 |
0.4168 |
0.1002 |
|
|
0.2663 |
0.3204 |
0.9265 |
0.7134 |
0.9490 |
0.1917 |
|
|
0.5526 |
0.5995 |
0.8867 |
0.8110 |
0.8298 |
0.0567* |
|
|
0.4104 |
0.2856 |
0.0764* |
0.6496 |
0.1500 |
0.9980 |
|
|
0.2995 |
0.7558 |
0.9363 |
0.8172 |
0.8131 |
0.1113 |
|
|
0.3100 |
0.2832 |
0.8324 |
0.8276 |
0.5505 |
0.2584 |
|
|
0.8435 |
0.8493 |
0.5397 |
0.8886 |
0.8994 |
0.1406 |
|
Dummy |
0.4324 |
0.4727 |
0.5107 |
0.7128 |
0.4957 |
0.1592 |
ã Copyright 2002. Jean Monnet Chair of European Comparative Politics
Al-Omari Bilal
Khalaf, Economics Department, Bologna University