metadata: authors: 0: author: Cristea,Anca Diana
1: author: Hillberry,Russell Henry
2: author: Mattoo,Aaditya
count: Middle East and North Africa
docna: 0: docna: Open skies over the Middle East
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
theme: Other trade and integration
majtheme: Trade and integration
subtopic: Airports and Air Services,International Trade and Trade Rules,Trade and Services,Transport Services,Intelligent Transport Systems
teratopic: Public Sector Development,Transport,Environment
abstracts: cdata!: The dynamism of air traffic markets in
            the Middle East obscures the persistence of restrictions on
            international competition. But how important are such
            restrictions for passenger traffic? This paper uses detailed
            data on worldwide passenger aviation to estimate the effect
            of air transport policy on international air traffic. The
            policy variable is a quantitative measure of the commitments
            under international agreements. The paper analyzes, for the
            first time, not only bilateral agreements, but also
            plurilateral agreements such as the one between Arab states.
            The analysis finds that more liberal policy is associated
            with greater passenger traffic between countries. Higher
            traffic levels appear to be driven primarily by larger
            numbers of city pairs being served, rather than by more
            passengers traveling along given routes. To demonstrate the
            quantitative implication of the estimates, two
            liberalization scenarios in the Middle East are evaluated.
            Deepening the plurilateral agreement among Arab states would
            lead to a 30 percent increase in intraregional passenger
            traffic. Widening the agreement to include Turkey would
            generate significantly larger gains because current policy
            vis-à-vis Turkey is much more restrictive.
repnme: repnme: Open skies over the Middle East
display_title: Open skies over the Middle East
listing_relative_url: /research/2014/06/19705719/open-skies-over-middle-east
topicv3: Air Transport m1326010 165,Transport m1326661 135,Trade m1326924 698,Trade in Services m1326928 780,Traffic Management m1583399 4231
publishtoextweb_dt: 2014-06-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Public Sector Development,Transport,Environment
no_of_pages: 37
author_keys: 0: author_key: 1248392
1: author_key: 1228415
2: author_key: 429183
model_extractions: WPS6937 Policy Research Working Paper 6937 Open Skies over the Middle East _Anca Cristea Russell Hillberry Aaditya Mattoo_ The World Bank Development Research Group Trade and International Integration Team June 2014
Policy Research Working Paper 6937

# **Abstract**

The dynamism of air traffic markets in the Middle East obscures the persistence of restrictions on international competition. But how important are such restrictions for passenger traffic? This paper uses detailed data on worldwide passenger aviation to estimate the effect of air transport policy on international air traffic. The policy variable is a quantitative measure of the commitments under international agreements. The paper analyzes, for the first time, not only bilateral agreements, but also plurilateral agreements such as the one between Arab states. The analysis finds that more liberal policy is associated with greater passenger traffic between countries. Higher traffic levels appear to be driven primarily by larger numbers of city pairs being served, rather than by more passengers traveling along given routes. To demonstrate the quantitative implication of the estimates, two liberalization scenarios in the Middle East are evaluated. Deepening the plurilateral agreement among Arab states would lead to a 30 percent increase in intraregional passenger traffic. Widening the agreement to include Turkey would generate significantly larger gains because current policy vis-à-vis Turkey is much more restrictive.

This paper is a product of the Trade and International Integration Team, Development Research Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at cristea@uoregon.edu, rhillberry@worldbank.org, and amattoo@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **Open Skies over the Middle East**<sup>*****∗</sup>

Anca Cristea Russell Hillberry Aaditya Mattoo<sup>†</sup> Dept of Economics DECTI DECTI U of Oregon World Bank World Bank Keywords: air transport; air service agreements; services liberalization; plurilateral agreements JEL: F13; L93; R48 Sector Board: Economic Policy (EPOL)

> _*_ We thank Sibel Kulaksiz for encouraging to us undertake this work. We also thank Antonia Carzaniga for providing us with the policy data, and Guoliang Feng for excellent research assistance. Any remaining errors are our own.

> † _Contact_ : Cristea: Department of Economics, University of Oregon, 1285 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405; E-mail: cristea@uoregon.edu. Russell Hillberry: Development Research Group, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC, 20433, United States; E-mail:  rhillberry@worldbank.org. Aaditya Mattoo: Development Research Group, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC, 20433, United States; Email: <u>amattoo@worldbank.org.</u>
“When you want to do business in a new market...you need as direct flights as possible...”

- _Emin Sazak, president of Turkey’s contractors union_<sup>2</sup>

# **I. Introduction**

Turkey, long a fulcrum between the West and the East, has deepened its economic links with the European Union and is now turning to the Middle East. In this sometimes turbulent neighborhood, it is beginning to create dynamic trade links which echo past relationships albeit in a new international context. Even in the age of the internet, where geography seems passe, physical connectivity matters. Goods must be delivered, businesspersons must meet, and people must travel to forge bonds and catalyze trade. In facilitating each of these links, air transport is critical, especially in a region where terrestrial travel is fraught with difficulty.

Turkey’s Arab neighbors are already party to the Intra-Arab Freedom of the Air Programme of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (henceforth referred to as the “ACAC”). This Programme has in principle created conditions for more liberalized air transport, but more could be done to create fully open conditions (Schlumberger, 2010). By comparison, the bilateral air service agreements (BASAs) between Turkey and its Arab neighbors are quite restrictive. Looking ahead, policy makers must make choices: whether to deepen a plurilateral agreement like the ACAC, and whether to negotiate more liberal bilateral agreements with partners such as Turkey. We attempt to inform such decisions with quantitative estimates. In particular, we assess the benefits of a more meaningful open skies agreement in the Middle East, which would both deepen the ACAC and include Turkey as a full-fledged member. Our focus is on the Middle East but these issues have global relevance, as regions from ASEAN to Africa pursue integration of their air transport markets.

We begin by estimating a gravity model of bilateral air traffic, which helps us relate passenger flows to measures of openness in air services agreements, while controlling for other determinants of

> 2 Quoted in “Companies no longer content to rely on traditional ties with west,” by Funja Guler and Daniel Dombey, Financial Times Special Report on “New Trade Routes:  Turkey,” Thursday May 9, 2013.

2
international travel. In this respect, our study builds upon prior work. Our paper contributes to a small but growing literature that examines the implications of liberalization in international aviation markets. One branch of the literature has exploited the high quality data available for air travel involving US airports, and variation in the timing of US bilateral agreements.<sup>3</sup> This literature gives us a fairly nuanced understanding of the effects of the US agreements, including estimates of the effect of an agreement on the number of city pairs with direct flights. But the insights of this literature are related to the US market, and to the specifics of the agreements the US has signed. Another branch of the literature has used crosssectional variation in the level of policy commitments in agreements world-wide.<sup>4</sup> This literature offers an understanding of the effects outside the US, but there is not yet evidence on particular outcomes such as growth in the number of city pairs served by direct flights.

We extend the analysis and add to the existing literature in four different ways. First, we employ a rich cross-sectional dataset on origin-destination pairs worldwide that combines the extensive country coverage observed in prior studies with the city-pair level detail that has only been exploited in studies of the United States. This improved dataset acquired from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) allows us to expand our investigation beyond country-level gravity regressions. Second, our econometric analysis focuses not only on bilateral aviation agreements but also on plurilateral agreements. Third, we go beyond understanding the impact of aviation policy on air passenger flows and explore how liberalization affects the extensive margin of global aviation through the introduction of new direct services at city-pair level. Finally, we use the results of our model to derive counterfactual calculations and policy predictions.

> 3 Brueckner and Whalen (2000), Brueckner (2003), Whalen (2007), and Bilotkach (2007) employ US international data on true origin-destination city-pair air traffic to investigate the price effects of inter-airline strategic alliances and market competition following the signing of OSAs. Cristea et al. (2012) and Jia and Winston (2012) consolidate the various market responses associated with the liberalization of air passenger traffic into a welfare calculation. Micco and Serebrisky (2006) find that OSAs reduce air cargo freight rates by 9 percent and increase the share of US imports arriving by air by 5 percent after 5 years or more after the agreements enter into force.

> 4 Gonenc and Nicoletti (2001) and Doove et al. (2001) use factor analysis and information on a wide array of industry characteristics to construct aviation restrictiveness indexes. Piermartini and Rousova (2012), use information on 2300 bilateral Air Service Agreement (ASA) in force in 2005 among 184 countries to estimate the impact of air service liberalization on bilateral passenger flows.  They find that increasing the degree of liberalization between two countries from the 25<sup>th</sup> to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile observed in the sample increases total passenger traffic by approximately 18 percent.

3
The results of the paper suggest that more liberal bilateral air service agreements are associated with more passenger traffic, and with more city-pairs served by direct flights. There appears to be no statistically significant difference between the effects of bilateral and plurilateral agreements once we take into account the respective policy content. We use our empirical results in a counterfactual analysis in two steps.<sup>5</sup> First, we quantify the impact of deepening the ACAC agreement by assessing how much more traffic there would be among ACAC members if the policy commitments were extended to match those of the most liberal international agreements (e.g. UK-Singapore). Using country-level data we find that traffic flows would grow by approximately 30%. The city-pair estimates suggest that traffic along given routes would grow modestly (by 5 to 8%), but that there would be a significant increase in the number of city pairs served by direct international flights within the ACAC.

In the second step, we estimate the implications of Turkey’s accession to the ACAC agreement, assuming the more liberal commitments. This implies very large changes in the openness of the policy commitments, because Turkey’s existing agreements with countries in the region are quite restrictive, when such agreements exist at all. The country level analysis of Turkey’s accession to the ACAC at increased levels of policy commitments suggests that passenger traffic between Turkey and ACAC countries would more than double.<sup>6</sup> City level analysis suggests that the increase in traffic would occur both through the growth of traffic on given routes and substantial increases in the number of city pairs served.<sup>7</sup> In the full liberalization policy scenario we consider, passenger growth along existing routes is modest, but the likelihood that a direct flight would occur between a given pairing of a Turkish and an

> 5 The counterfactual analysis we conduct relies solely on parameters we estimate in the reduced form econometric models, and not on a fully specified model of the behavior of market participants.  As such we only calculate first order effects of liberalization, assuming that the coefficients remain constant and that other right hand side variables do not change in response to our policy shock.  We are potentially missing secondary effects that might operate, for example, through binding capacity constraints, or through spillovers to other markets.  But these effects are difficult to estimate without substantially more data and a richer model structure, so we employ transparent calculations that rely on the reduced form estimates.

> 6 A policy scenario in which Turkey enters at the existing level of ACAC commitments generates a rough doubling of passenger traffic between Turkey and the ACAC member states.

> 7 An increase in the number of cities served by international travel reflects an improvement in the overall quality of air transport services because more people have the ability to take a direct flight.

4
ACAC city would nearly triple. These large increases reflect both the significant changes in policy that we contemplate and the low probability that such city pairs are currently served by direct flights.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the two main sources of data used in our analysis. Section III chronicles trends in international air passenger travel and the restrictiveness of existing bilateral air services agreements among the countries in our sample. Section IV describes the gravity model used to estimate the links between bilateral traffic and policy while controlling for other determinants of air traffic. Section V presents the results and their main implications, while Section VI concludes.

# **II. Data**

This section describes several data sets that we combine in our analysis. Our principal measure of air traffic activity is passenger travel on scheduled international flights between origin and destination cities. We seek to understand how this and related measures of air passenger traffic are related to measures of international air policy embedded in bilateral and plurilateral air services agreements. Our data also include a number of control variables that we also describe in this section.

**_Passenger data_** .  The primary data set that we use to document air passenger travel is the onflight origin and destination (OFOD) database purchased from the ICAO.  The ICAO collects information from national governments on international flight segments for _scheduled_ air flights.  The data we employ is the number of passengers travelling on scheduled flights for each pair of cities connected by an international flight.

This traffic measure differs from that used in Piermartini and Rousova (2012), which employs data from the International Air Travel Association (IATA) on numbers of international tickets, rather than flights.<sup>8</sup> Ticket information follows a passenger from origin airport to destination airport, and this may contain multiple flights. Ticket information is useful for understanding customers’ demand for

> 8 The data used by Piermartini and Rousova (2012) are also aggregated at the country level, while we have information for city-to-city flights.  In some cases, we also aggregate to the country level, but some suppressions in our city pair data make the city-to-city data preferable.

5
international travel; flight information presents in detail the manner in which airlines supply segments of passengers’ international travel.

The information we study, then, is best at documenting the existence of direct flights, and the degree to which flights between specific city-pairs are used. The information we have does not contain information on prices (i.e. ticket fares), nor does it indicate class of service offered, only passenger numbers. Perhaps its most useful attribute is that it indicates whether or not a passenger travelling between two cities has to change planes, which is a key indicator of quality.<sup>9</sup> In focusing our attention on flights, rather than tickets, we seek to complement existing evidence on the effects of air services policy on passenger travel as measured by tickets.<sup>10</sup> The ICAO data is incomplete for years following 2010, so we use passenger data for 2010. Thus all our estimates characterize the situation in 2010. Our counterfactual analysis indicates what would have been the situation in 2010, if the policy scenarios we consider had been in place then. For example, we calculate the predicted air travel patterns if the ACAC were to adopt more liberal policy commitments. The predicted passenger routes are an estimate of what routes would have existed if the proposed policies had been in place in 2010.

**_Policy data_** . Our primary indicator of policy is the Air Liberalization Index (ALI) score assigned to each agreement by an analysis done at the World Trade Organization (WTO).  The WTO created four summary indicators of policy embodied in air services agreements.  These indicators are weighted sums of individual features of the agreements: traffic rights, (lack of) restrictions on capacity, flexibility of pricing allowed, withholding restrictions such as ownership or place of business, designation, and other elements.

> 9 Some very long flights in our database would involve a change in planes. For example, the Chicago, USA to Sydney, Australia flights in the database involve a stopover in Los Angeles, US, and a plane change.  We are not able to distinguish such flights but consider the ICAO indication that there is a flight between two cities to be a close enough proxy for the existence of a direct flight.

> 10 In their study of US data, Cristea et al (2012) find that policy does affect both flights and ticketing demand. Nonetheless they find that much of the increased passenger activity that is attributed to the air services agreement can be linked to the increased number of flights on the initial international segment.

6
We employ the standard measure of ALI produced by the WTO. Like the other measures, the standard ALI runs from 0 to 50; agreements that score 50 are the most liberal agreements. Two agreements in the database have a score of 50, the UK-Singapore agreement and the New Zealand - Brunei Darussalam agreement. One empirical difficulty is that the WTO did not provide an ALI score for the European Union, which has a common policy on international flights within the region and might be understood as a plurilateral agreement. We score the European Union at ALI = 50, but we also include a dummy variable that captures any idiosyncratic differences between the EU arrangements and bilateral arrangements that are scored at ALI = 50.<sup>11</sup> The WTO index was created to score bilateral air services agreements, which are the binding agreements for most international air traffic. More recently, a number of plurilateral arrangements have been signed; these agreements regulate air services among groups of countries, rather than just pairs of countries. To our knowledge, this study is the first to incorporate measures of air liberalization embodied in these agreements.

While the WTO has applied to the plurilateral agreements the methodology it applied to bilateral agreements, there are some difficulties with the interpretation of these scores in the plurilateral context. Notably, third-country travel arrangements are often allowed within a plurilateral agreement’s membership but often not outside the membership. In order to account for possible differences in the effect of policy on traffic we also include a dummy variable indicating that the two countries’ air travel is governed by a plurilateral rather than bilateral air services agreement.

Finally, we also include a variable indicating the age of the air services agreement. This should be understood primarily as a control variable. Older agreements might link countries that were especially prominent in early air travel. Agreement age might also affect policy if recent agreements tend to be

> 11 The dummy variable can also be understood as a control for the deep integration of transportation markets in Europe, which provides readily available alternatives to air passenger travel. With that interpretation in mind, we also included flows involving Iceland, Norway and Switzerland in our Europe Indicator dummy.

7
more open. Whatever the dominant effect, it is useful to allow agreements to have differentiated effects based upon their age.

**_Control data_** . In order to identify the impact of policy on traffic we must also control for nonpolicy determinants of international traffic.  Since our primary interest is in city-to-city traffic, we include a number of controls at the city and the city-pair levels.  The primary city-specific data we include is city population.<sup>12</sup> City-to-city distances are included as further controls; specifically, we employ great-circle distances as calculated from the geographic coordinates of each city.  Logged distances are included in the regression as are squared log distances.  We also include a measure of the absolute number of hours of difference in time between the two cities as such time differences might affect air travel demand.

There are several control variables at the country and country-pair levels. Country level measures of GDP per capita, population, and land area are taken from the World Development Indicators, and are included as potential determinants of the overall demand for air travel. Country-pair control measures include dummy variables indicating that a) one country colonized the other, b) the two countries share a common language, c) the countries share a land border, d) are both democracies, e) are both WTO members, and f) are both members of a common regional trade agreement.<sup>13</sup> Continuous variables on country pair relationships include a) annual average temperature difference, an indicator for tourism demand;<sup>14</sup> b) total bilateral trade, and c) the share of total trade that involves face-to-face interactions (that is, trade that falls under the “differentiated products” classification in Rauch (1999)).

# **III. Descriptive Statistics**

In this section we provide a brief description of patterns of passenger travel and policy.

> 12 The population data are taken, in the first instance from UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.  This data set does not report populations for some smaller cities.  We supplement this data with data from the web site www.citypopulation.de, an aggregator of national population statistics. In each case the city populations are reflective of larger urban areas, not simply the city boundaries.

> 13 The colonial, language and common border dummy variables are taken from _CEPII_ , and described in Head, et al (2010).  The classification of governments as democracies or not is done by The Polity IV project.  Data available here  http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.

> 14 The underlying data for the average monthly temperature differences are an indicator for tourism demand, and are taken from the _World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal: Historical Data,_ at _<u>http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/cckp_historical_data.</u>_

8
# **III.1     Trends in International Air Passenger Travel**

In order to understand the context of our work on the 2010 data, we provide some initial summary statistics about the levels and changes of air passenger traffic in the years 2000 and 2010.<sup>15</sup> Table 1 reports passenger traffic for select origin and destination countries using the on-flight origin and destination data from the ICAO. These figures report total scheduled air passenger traffic. These figures do not include traffic on non-scheduled flights, such as charter flights, but include scheduled traffic accounts for most international air passenger travel. The table also reports the number of scheduled flights.

The table shows that Turkey has seen rapid growth, both inbound and outbound, within the ACAC and with the rest-of the world. Official decisions to lift visa requirements for many Arab countries and sign free trade agreements with Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan have increased the flow of people and goods between Turkey and the Middle East and North Africa.<sup>16</sup> Growth within the ACAC has also been rapid, although varying over origins and destinations. The spectacular levels of growth in traffic involving the UAE is notable, and observed across most countries in the region.<sup>17</sup> The figures in Table 1 are consistent with Turkey’s aspirations to become a regional hub for international air travel. Given the underlying fundamentals this seems possible, but there is not, as yet, a firm international policy setting that can facilitate such a development. We turn to an empirical model to help us understand the likely effects of policy change.

# **III.2     Patterns of Policy Governing Air Passenger Traffic**

As noted above, most air traffic is governed by bilateral air service agreements between pairs of countries, and some by plurilateral agreements between groups of countries. We are interested primarily

> 15 2010 is the most recent year for which the ICAO data is complete.

> 16 “Regional push resumes following Arab Spring,” by Borzou Daragahi, Financial Times Special Report on “New Trade Routes:  Turkey,” Thursday May 9, 2013.

> 17 Often, these growth rates are off a relatively small base.

9
in two sets of agreements: one relating to traffic between the Arab countries; and the other to traffic between Turkey and each of the Arab countries.

The Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC) was created in 1999 as part of an agreement to liberalize intra-Arab air services by gradually reducing restrictions for carriers of member states.<sup>18</sup> This resulted first in the signing of 17 bilateral open skies agreements among Commission states. In December 2004, several Arab League members – Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza), Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and the Republic of Yemen – signed a plurilateral agreement referred to as the Arab League Open Skies Agreement. The Agreement clearly covers the first four freedoms of the air (Annex Table 1).<sup>19</sup> The agreement also seems to go beyond these freedoms because it includes traffic “to and from any of the territories of the State parties.” As Schlumberger (2010, p 69) argues, “Clearly, fifth freedom rights are included, because any destination within state parties beyond the initial destination is included. The Agreement even seems to grant seventh freedom rights, as it does not specify that traffic needs to route back over the departure point in the initial state party. The only freedom that is clearly excluded is cabotage, the eighth freedom.” The other provisions of the ACAC open skies agreements are also presented in Annex Table 1. Article 5 entitles each state party to designate one or more air transport companies to benefit from the provisions of the agreement, provided the companies have substantial ownership or effective control by one or more state parties, or their citizens and their main place of business is in one of the state parties. Article 7 provides the freedom of capacity. Article 8 allows companies to determine their tariffs on the basis of commercial considerations.

> 18 The discussion of the Arab League Open Skies Agreement draws upon Schlumberger (2010).

> 19 The freedoms of the air are described in ICAO (2004) as the following: 1st is the right to fly over a foreign country, without landing there;  2nd is the right to refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country on the way to another country;  3rd is the right to fly from one's own country to another;  4th is the right to fly from another country to one's own;  5th is the right to fly between two foreign countries during flights while the flight originates or ends in one's own country;  6th is the right to fly from a foreign country to another one while stopping in one's own country for non-technical reasons;  7th is the right to fly between two foreign countries while not offering flights to one's own country;  8th is the right to fly between two or more airports in a foreign country while continuing service to one's own country;  9th is the right to fly inside a foreign country without continuing service to one's own country.

10
The rules governing the ACAC relationship with third parties, such as Turkey, are specified in Annex Table 2. Particularly relevant is Article 31 concerned with future bilateral agreements between members of the ACAC and third parties. It states that, “The States Parties shall not grant rights or give undertakings to third party States where such rights or undertakings could restrict or affect the rights conferred upon the States Parties under this Agreement.” And “The rights conferred upon the States Parties under this Agreement shall not be subject to individual negotiations or dealings with any third party state or states where such negotiations or dealings could affect the rights of the other State Party/States Parties.” These provisions would seem to create a presumption in favor of negotiations with ACAC as a whole rather than separately with individual member states - much as the European Commission has discouraged the negotiation of open skies agreements between EU member states and third parties like the United States. But separate negotiations are not ruled out.

Article 32 governing accession provisions for third parties is, therefore, also relevant. It states that "The State Party/States Parties shall have the right to exchange the air transport rights stipulated in this agreement on a basis of reciprocity with any alliance of third party states grouped in a regional or sub-regional economic integration organization. To this end, the States Parties may call on the assistance of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission or any other negotiating body which may be entrusted with this task." WTO (2007) has assigned a fairly liberal score of 39 to the ACAC and we apply this to each of the bilateral relations between ACAC members. Recall that 50 represents the most liberal score so this is a fairly liberal agreement. The bilateral agreements between Turkey and ACAC members (where they exist, Annex Table 3) have been assessed by the WTO to be comparatively restrictive. The agreements between Turkey with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria each have scores of 11; the agreements with Iraq and Tunisia have scores of 10; and the agreement with Egypt has a score of only 4. Interestingly, direct air transportation services with several key countries are not covered by bilateral air services agreements as recorded by ICAO in 2005. These include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Yemen. We, therefore, do not have any information on the restrictiveness of 11
these bilateral agreements. Nevertheless, the large gap between the liberal scores assigned to the plurilateral agreement governing intra-ACAC traffic, and the relatively restrictive scores assigned to bilateral agreements governing Turkey’s traffic with individual ACAC member states suggests that liberalization of Turkey’s relations with the ACAC could have a significant impact on traffic.

# **IV. Estimation Procedure**

This section describes the estimation strategy that we pursue in order to understand the effects of air services liberalization on international air passenger transport. We focus our analysis on two important margins of expansion of the aviation industry: 1) the intensive margin, defined as the volume of passengers within a geographic market, and 2) the extensive margin, defined as the number of distinct markets where international direct air service is provided. We consider an aviation market as an origindestination pair, and conduct our analysis at two levels of data aggregation: country-pair as well as citypair levels. While the specification of the regression model differs minimally across outcomes of interest and bilateral market definitions, each data exercise sheds lights on a different aspect of the international aviation market.

We think of international air passenger flows between origin and destination locations as analogous to bilateral international trade flows, and rely on the gravity model of trade for the empirical analysis.<sup>20</sup> Our baseline empirical specification can be written as follows:

> 20 The gravity equation is considered the workhorse model of international trade because of its empirical success in explaining the volume of bilateral trade between two trading partners. It has been pioneered by Tinbergen (1962), and later on Anderson (1979), Bergstrand (1985), Anderson and van Wincoop (2003), and others have contributed with theoretical microeconomic foundations of the gravity equation. Over time, the gravity equation has been successfully applied to analyze many other bilateral relationships such as foreign direct investments (Brainard, 1997), financial flows (Portes and Rey, 2005), migration (Karemera et al., 2000) or international travel flows (Neiman and Swagel, 2009).

12
where _log_ denotes the natural logarithm; _i_ and _j_ index the origin, respectively the destination locations (i.e., countries or cities); _Xi, Xj and Zij_ represent vectors of additional control variables that are specific to origin _i,_ to destination _j,_ or to the bilateral pair _ij_ .<sup>21</sup> The dependent variable _Pax_ denotes the number of passengers traveling from _i_ to _j_ during the year 2005. The aviation liberalization index _ALI_ , characterizing the bilateral pair _ij_ , is our variable of interest. We expect that more liberal agreements between two countries will generate larger international passenger flows, _β1 >0._ We also include a dummy variable indicating that the agreement governing air traffic on the ij route is a plurilateral. The _β2_ coefficient associated with the plurilateral dummy is included to measure any average tendency for plurilateral agreements to differ from bilateral agreements in their effects on air passenger traffic. This estimate is conditional on the policy measures included in the agreement, as measured by the _ALI_ score. International policies necessitate a phase-in period for the full benefits of the new policy to be reflected on the market outcomes.<sup>22</sup> For this reason, we include as control variable in the regression model the age of the air service agreement signed between countries _i_ and _j_ , and expect it to have a positive effect on air traffic.

Another set of control variables are those motivated by the gravity model. We use distance and distance squared as proxies for route-specific operation costs, which affect airfare and thus the demand for travel. We allow distance to affect traffic non-linearly in order to control for elements such as the fixed cost of takeoff and landing. Population ( _Pop_ ) and per-capita income ( _PcGDP_ ), measured at origin and at destination, account for the level of aggregate demand.<sup>23</sup> All else equal, large populations and high income levels are expected to have a significant positive effect on air passenger traffic.

> 21 We do not specify this equation using origin and destination specific fixed effects, as is often done in gravity models of international trade.  The primary reason for this is that many of the countries in our country sample, along with the vast majority of the cities in our city sample, have a relatively small number of partner countries/cities.  The large number of zero observations that flow from that fact implies that the binary choice model we estimate is a critically important feature of the analysis, and large numbers of fixed effects are not appropriate for binary choice models, especially when the right hand side variable is dominated by zeroes.

> 22 Micco and Serebrisky (2004) and Cristea et al. (2012) provide evidence for the US that the effect of Open Skies Agreements is fully reflected in price and quantity outcomes for air passenger and freight transport services more that 3 or 5 years since they enter into effect.

> 23 Even though air traffic flows reflect only one direction of travel, the destination-specific variables influence the level of demand at the origin through economies of density effects and reduced round-trip operation costs.

13
Dummy variables that indicate the presence of a border, common colony and common language are included to capture proximity, socio-cultural and historical links between the origin and destination locations. All else equal, neighboring countries rely more on ground than on air transport, implying an expected negative effect of a shared international border on the volume of air passenger traffic. On the other hand, sharing a common language and colonial ties increases the similarity between the cultures, norms and institutions of the two locations, inducing more leisure and business travel. Bilateral trade between origin and destination countries is also included because more trade may require more business travel.<sup>24</sup> Other control variables considered in the estimation, and summarized by the three variable vectors, are: the geographic area of countries (to account for population density and growth of extensive margin expansion), membership in free trade agreements and in the World Trade Organization (aviation liberalization may reflect broader trade liberalization efforts), differences in average annual temperatures (a proxy for leisure travel and tourism), differences in time zones (which increase the non-monetary cost of travel and doing business), and the trade share of differentiated goods (which may be especially likely to require face-to-face meetings for contract negotiations and quality inspections). Finally, we include a dummy for whether both countries are democracies in year 2005 (they are more likely to consider signing a liberal agreement, but also more likely to take advantage of the benefits the ASA offers). We include a dummy variable for country pairs inside Europe to correct any bias that might emerge because the EU arrangements were not scored by the WTO and we have simply applied a score of 50 on these routes.

We first estimate the regression equation (1) using country-pair aggregate data on air passenger traffic flows. This exercise informs our understanding of the relationship between policy and air passenger traffic between countries. We estimate country-level regression specifications using ordinary least squares (OLS) methods.

> 24 The baseline regression includes bilateral trade since we think it is an especially important control that is a good proxy for economic links, and because higher levels of trade may increase demand for passenger travel.  Being sensitive to the concern that trade is possibly endogenous to passenger traffic, we have also estimated the models without including bilateral trade and find that the coefficients are quite stable. We report results for the specification in (1) and (3) but the other results are available on request.

14
This specification raises three estimation issues: reverse causality, omitted variables and zero passenger flows, respectively. The primary concern of these three is that country pairs characterized by large air traffic flows are more likely to cooperate and negotiate a liberal ASA. It is also possible that country pairs with little or no direct air services connecting them sign liberal ASAs in order to encourage air traffic growth. In any case, endogeneity is mitigated by the fact that most of the agreements in our sample were signed long before the period we examine and therefore could reasonably be treated as exogenous to recent traffic flows.<sup>25</sup> The second concern is that there are other bilateral factors that lead both to higher traffic flows and more liberal agreements. We attempt to address this concern by including in our specification an unusually wide range of bilateral covariates. These include bilateral trade flows, the share of differentiated products in trade, joint membership in the WTO, and more. The inclusion of these variables mitigates concerns that our results are sensitive to omitted variables bias, even though some of these variables too are potentially endogenous. Fortunately, our coefficients are not sensitive to the inclusion of these additional controls in the sample.

Finally, one last estimation issue is the existence of zero traffic flows in our dataset. Because our dependent variable is in log format, we lose from our estimation sample all the origin-destination pairs with zero air service activity. Even when positive, the passenger number information on certain city-pairs operated by a single airline is suppressed by ICAO for confidentiality. This further complicates the estimation strategy. And since the data censoring is not based on the actual number of passengers, standard estimation procedures such as Tobit regressions (which correct for bottom coding) do not apply in this case. The econometric problem of zero dependent variables is pervasive in this literature on the gravity equation, and authors are often constrained to estimate regression models conditional on positive bilateral flows. Nevertheless, we do attempt to take a step further and account for zeros by estimating equation (1) using the Poisson method (Santos Silva and Tenreyro, 2006).

> 25 The mean and median age of an air service agreement in our sample is 25 years. Only 13 percent of the agreements observed in our sample have entered into effect within five years prior to 2010. Among the oldest agreements are the ones involving European countries, some of which go as far back as 55 or 60 years.

15
# _Estimation using city-pair data_

The growth in country-level bilateral air passenger traffic generated by air services liberalization can be explained by growth along the extensive margin (i.e., the number of direct city-pair aviation services), and along the intensive margin (i.e., growth in traffic within a city-pair). We take advantage of the level of disaggregation in the ICAO dataset to estimate a regression model similar to equation (1) using city-pair air traffic data. This exercise corresponds to an analysis of air services liberalization along the intensive margin. We modify the regression in equation (1) slightly in order to reflect city specific characteristics. First, we replace the country level bilateral distance terms with city-pair distances. Second, we add information on city population levels at origin and destination.<sup>26</sup> Last, we construct a city-specific variable to capture the “hub-ness” of a city by measuring the fraction of all the international departures from a given country that originate in that city. All else equal, consumers attach great value to the flight options of a hub city, while airlines can economize greatly on the fixed cost of ground operations when serving passengers out of the same city. Thus, we expect city “hub-ness” measured at origin and destination to enter positively in the regression.

One advantage of the city-pair data sample is that it allows us to investigate how air services liberalization influences market entry, and thus _the probability that a given city-pair becomes connected through a direct flight service._ We exploit the patterns of ones and zeros for the existence of a direct flight service within a city-pair to estimate a logit regression model.<sup>27</sup> Therefore, we define: and estimate the following logit regression model:

> 26 We keep in the city-pair regression specifications the population variables in order to capture some information on the spatial distribution of population within each country. For example, if a significant fraction of a country’s population lives outside a gateway airport, the city size variable is not going to be sufficient in order to predict the size of city-pair passenger flows.

> 27 Out of the various ways to model binary response variables, we choose a logit regression model because of its estimation performance when there is a very large number of zeros in the sample.

16
The set of explanatory variables are the same as in the previous regressions. Given the form of the dependent variable, the estimated coefficients will be interpreted as an effect on the odds of a direct flight service connecting cities _i_ and _j_ . As an example, based on the model in equation (3), a one unit increase in the bilateral _ALI_ leads to a change in the odds of a direct flight equal to _exp(γ)_ .

# **V. Results and Implications**

# _V.1     Country Level Estimates_

We start by estimating equation (1) using ordinary least squares and bilateral country-level data on the volume of on-flight air passenger traffic. The results are reported in Table 2. Column 1 considers a parsimonious specification with the ALI variable entering on its own. The coefficient of interest suggests that air services liberalization has a positive and significant effect on bilateral air traffic. A 1-unit increase in ALI leads to a 2.7 percent increase in air passengers.

All the control variables considered in the baseline model enter the regression with the expected sign and are generally highly significant. Larger distances between the two countries increase the demand for air traffic reflecting fewer alternative modes of transport. However the effect is increasing at a decreasing rate, with too large distances discouraging air travel because of the increasing travel costs. The economic size of each of the two countries, captured by their population and GDP levels, has a positive effect on air passenger travel, as does the volume of bilateral trade. Sharing a national border, having a common official language and common colonial ties also affects positively air travel between countries. This indicates that cultural, social and institutional similarities reduce travel costs, encouraging the crossborder mobility of people. Finally, the regression results suggest that a country’s land area reduces 17
international travel, conditional on population and income. This result is consistent with the fact that population density matters for the efficiency of an aviation network.

The specification in column 1 assumes that plurilateral and bilateral agreements have the same effects on passenger travel. In column 2 we include a dummy variable that indicates whether traffic along a route is governed by a plurilateral agreement. This coefficient is positive but not statistically significant. The ALI coefficient in this specification drops slightly, to 0.023, but is largely unaffected.

One concern with the estimates obtained so far is the possibility of endogeneity associated with the signing of liberal aviation agreements. One source of endogeneity is the omission of variables that are correlated with both the level of air traffic and the extent of aviation liberalization. When omitted from the model, the effect of these variables can load onto the coefficients of interest. To mitigate this issue, in column 3 we extend the regression model to account for additional control variables. In particular, we consider two measures of trade policy integration: membership in regional trade agreements (RTA) and in the WTO. They may predict the likelihood of services liberalization, and also influence the volume of air passenger flows. We also consider the share of trade in differentiated goods, following Rauch (1999), as it has been shown that face-to-face communication is very important when trading such goods (Cristea, 2011). Furthermore, we include a dummy variable indicating that the origin and destination countries are both democracies, as democracy may affect both the mobility of people and the countries’ intentions to liberalize aviation markets. Finally, we account for differences in average annual temperatures and in time zones between the countries, as they also influence the volume of travel and, through that, countries’ incentives to liberalize their aviation markets. Overall, while these controls seem necessary in the regression, they do little in terms of changing the coefficients of interest and the main findings from prior specifications.

Column 4 offers a robustness check on the log-linear specification. The results in column 4 are based on estimation of a Poisson model. We estimate the model only over the observations with positive reported passenger flows. The large number of zero observations in our data offers one reason for doing 18
so. Another reason is that some country pairs have zero recorded traffic due to data suppression. Again, qualitatively, the Poisson specification preserves the data patterns identified in the prior specifications.

The final row of Table 2 reports estimates of a simple counterfactual exercise in which we calculate the quantitative impacts of policy changes on passenger traffic that are implied by the model. Specifically we consider changes in the ACAC commitments that would raise the ALI score from its current level (39) to that of the most liberal of the bilateral agreements (50). These estimates imply outcomes that would have occurred if more liberal policy had been in place in 2010. Our estimates suggest that traffic between pairs of ACAC countries would have been 27 to 35 percent higher, depending on the specification. These are our best estimates of the likely impact of a significant liberalization of commitments within the existing ACAC membership.

To summarize, the results from the aggregate gravity model reported in Table 2 indicate that aviation liberalization has a direct and positive effect on air traffic. The estimated response of passengers to the ALI policy index is stable across several specifications. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to conclude that, conditional on their policy provisions, the plurilateral and bilateral agreements differ substantially in their effect on passenger flows. The estimated effects of policy on passenger travel imply that implementation of policies consistent with the most liberal bilateral agreements would imply an increase in passenger travel of roughly 30 percent.

# _V.2 City Level Estimates_

The available cross-country evidence on the effects of air services agreements on air passenger traffic relies on measures of traffic between countries, as in Table 2. Studies of the US open skies agreements exploit data documenting flights between US and international cities. Cristea et al (2012), for example, show that the US agreements led to a shift of traffic away from primary hubs, so that passengers now enjoy many more direct international flights. In this section we estimate the impacts of policy on city level flows, in two ways. Initially, we estimate a model of traffic along existing city-to-city routes. Next we turn to a model that predicts the existence of an international flight between two cities.

19
Table 3 reports the results from estimating the regression model in equation (1) at a city pair level, using only data on origin-destination aviation markets with positive air traffic flows.<sup>28</sup> This corresponds to an analysis of the intensive margin response to aviation liberalization. Looking across the first three specifications reported in Table 3, the parameter estimates are largely consistent, ranging from 0.004 to 0.007, though they are only statistically significant in the first two columns. In the latter two columns, where we control for factors such as joint WTO membership and other variables, the effect of ALI on passenger numbers is not statistically different than zero. This suggests that, while country level evidence implies that higher ALI for a given country pair is associated with greater passenger travel between those two countries, the evidence that this is true for city pairs is quite weak. As we shall show in the subsequent table, higher ALI appears to increase traffic primarily along the extensive margin (meaning that more city pairs have flights, rather than more passengers travel along existing flights). As in Table 2, the final row of Table 3 reports counterfactual estimates consistent with a full liberalization of policy within the ACAC, conditional on the ALI coefficient in each column. These too are small, and have the same caveats about statistical significance. The estimated increase in passenger traffic among pairs of ACAC cities with existing flights is estimated to be between 4.5 and 8 percent. The existence of economically and statistically significant effects of policy in the country-level regressions but not in the city level regressions suggests an important role for the extensive margin, that more liberal policies allow for more direct flights between city pairs. This would be consistent with city-level research on the US agreements.<sup>29</sup> Table 4 reports the results from estimating the logit model described by equation (3). It is useful to emphasize the large difference between the number of city-pairs with positive air traffic reported by ICAO, and the number of city-pairs used in the logit model, where the great majority of the pairs formed among cities in the sample have no air service activity. Looking across the specifications reported in

> 28 We estimate the selection equation (i.e. whether there is a flight) separately from the level equation (how much traffic is on the flight), without using the selection equation results to inform the level equation, as in the Heckman procedure for example.  Such procedures are extremely sensitive to misspecification when there are a large number of zero observations, as there are in our data.

> 29 See Cristea, et al (2012).

20
Table 4, the first thing to point out is that the pattern of estimates matches the findings from the country level aggregate model: air services liberalization increases the odds of a direct flight between any two cities belonging to the signatory countries, and any implied differences between plurilateral and bilateral agreements are not statistically significant. The scale of the policy coefficient depends on the exact specification. But the final row of Table 4 illustrates that the quantitative implications are not so different. That row shows that raising ALI to 50 among ACAC cities would increase the odds of a flight between any two given cities by a factor of 1.2 to 1.3.

# _V.3     Simulating a Turkey-ACAC agreement_

The policy experiment we have in mind when designing the counterfactual exercises is the inclusion of Turkey in regional air services arrangements equivalent to those of the ACAC. Air passenger markets in the Middle East are changing rapidly. Turkey, which aspires to serve the region as a hub, has seen rapid growth in air passenger traffic, within the region and with the rest of the world. The policy environment, however, has not kept pace with these developments. Turkey is not a member of the ACAC. Instead, WTO measures suggest that Turkey’s bilateral passenger traffic arrangements with these countries are quite restrictive. We consider a scenario in which the ACAC and Turkey negotiate an agreement at the most liberal level of policy commitment available, ALI = 50. Because existing policy commitments are quite restrictive in most cases, this represents a dramatic change in the degree of air services liberalization between Turkey and the ACAC member states.

Table 5 reports a number of useful statistics along with counterfactual results for the intensive margin at both the country and city level. The second and third columns of the table report total 2010 traffic between each country and Turkey, as reported by the ICAO data. The fourth column (routes) indicates the number of city pairs for which the database records a flight between the specified country and Turkey. The fifth column reports the level of ALI reported in the WTO database for Turkey’s 21
agreement with the country, and the sixth indicates the change in ALI that we are considering.<sup>30</sup> The final four columns indicate the predicted change in travel along existing routes, which is 161-184 percent. Growth in flights along city-to-city routes for which direct flights exist is much more modest, 28 to 34 percent depending on the specification. Recall that only one of these estimates relies on a statistically significant regression coefficient, so even this much growth is uncertain.

As the earlier counterfactual estimates suggested, the link between changing ALI and more traffic appears to operate more through the extensive margin (more city pairs with direct flights) than through the intensive margin (more traffic for city pairs in which a flight exists). In Table 6 we illustrate this with estimates of the impact on city-to-city routes associated with the liberalization of commitments that would arise were Turkey and the ACAC to negotiate an agreement with ALI = 50. The second column of Table 6 indicates the number of city pairs that are possible between Turkey, and each ACAC country, if every location that handled international flights in the ACAC country were to share a flight with every location in Turkey that operates an international flight.<sup>31</sup> The third and fourth columns indicate the benchmark ALI score as well as the change in ALI that we use in our calculations. Columns 5 and 6 show the change in the odds ratio for flights between Turkey and each respective country, using estimates from Table 4, columns 2 and 3. These estimates suggest that the odds of a flight for any given city pair rise by a factor of roughly 1.7 to 3 depending on the estimates.

To make these estimates more tangible we use the final four columns of Table 6 to report our estimates of the number of city pairs in which the probability of flight (as predicted by our model) goes from below 0.5 to above 0.5 when we consider the policy change. In Table 6, we see that new city pairs emerge in many countries. As many as six new flights (to or from Lebanon) are predicted by the estimates in column 2 of Table 4. The estimates from Column 3 are roughly the same magnitude, but

> 30 The ALI governing traffic between Turkey and some ACAC members is not reported in the WTO database, because these countries did not have an existing bilateral arrangement with Turkey at the time these data were collected.  We impute these, using the passenger-weighted average of each country’s ALI with partners from the rest of the world. The weighted ALI average values are calculated and reported by the WTO.

> 31 There were 13 such cities in Turkey in 2010.

22
distributed somewhat differently across countries. Egypt sees the most new city-to-city routes (6) with Turkey under this specification.

# **VI. Conclusions**

In this study, we estimate a set of empirical models of air passenger traffic, in order to better understand the relationship between air transport policy and international traffic. We use a WTO index measure of policy commitments in both bilateral and plurilateral air services agreements, and relate these measures to ICAO data on air passenger traffic. We find that country pairs with more liberal policy commitments see greater air passenger traffic. Subsequent work at the city level indicates that, to a large degree, larger passenger numbers in more liberal agreements occur because more city pairs are served by a flight.

We use our empirical models to investigate the likely impact of two policy changes. First, we consider the impact of deepening the ACAC agreement, awarding it the same policy score as the UKSingapore bilateral agreement. Because policy within the ACAC is already fairly liberal, the deepening of the agreement has modest, but significant effects. Our estimates suggest a 30% increase in traffic between ACAC countries as a result of the policy change.

In a second scenario we add Turkey to the deeper ACAC agreement, assigning the same liberal measures to Turkey-ACAC passenger flows. Due to the restrictive nature of policy commitments between Turkey and many Arab countries, this scenario generates much more growth in passenger traffic. Our estimates suggest that passenger traffic would more than double. Much of this would arise through increasing numbers of direct flights between Turkish cities and cities in the ACAC member states.

While these results may seem optimistic, there are three reasons to suggest they are not unrealistic. First, current air passenger traffic levels in the region are low, and fast growth is plausible off a small base. Second, much faster growth rates have been observed in recent years in selected regional markets. Finally, the policy changes we consider are large, with the Turkey-ACAC policies changing 23