Competitive Position of EU Candidate Countries and Eastern Partnership Countries in Trading Fruit and Vegetables in the Single European Market

Abstract

This study aims to assess the competitive position of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in trading fruit and vegetables in the Single European Market in 2009 and 2023. This paper presents the amount and balance of bilateral trade in fruit and vegetables between the EU and the countries considered. It also estimates their comparative advantages in the EU internal market. A mapping tool based on the Widodo scheme was used for that purpose. This study proved that most EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership members increased their trade values and improved their competitive position in the Single European Market (SEM) over the analyzed period. The boosters of trade included the demand in EU member markets (stimulated by the evolving consumption patterns and the widespread adoption of healthy diet patterns), the population’s purchasing power, and their willingness to buy diversified products. Turkey exported a considerable volume of fruit and vegetables to the EU and gained the strongest competitive position in the SEM. In this case, the growth of exports to the EU market was primarily driven by the production potential resulting from large agricultural land resources, climate conditions, and geographical proximity. It may be concluded that the comparative advantages gained by the analyzed countries provided a basis for a beneficial export specialization, which shows the continuous relevance of the classical theory in explaining the volume and structure of trade in agri-food products. When considering the factors determining competitiveness, it may also be stated that the neoclassical theory of factor endowment developed by Heckscher, Ohlin, and Samuelson supports the optimization of agri-food export specialization in the analyzed countries. It was also shown that bilateral trade policies and agreements are decisive in trade performance and the shaping of international competitive positions.

1. Introduction

Competitiveness can be analyzed from several points of view. Although a single widely adopted approach to that topic has not emerged yet, recent literature on the subject reveals a consensus on the characteristics that describe competitiveness and provides a detailed insight into it. Competitiveness should refer to specific objects (a product, a sector, or an industry) or operators (a country, a region, an enterprise) and be compared against a benchmark (as it is a relative aspect). Also, the study should specify the domain where a comparative advantage will emerge (the competitiveness dimension) and decide whether competitiveness is analyzed as a static element (the competitive position at a given point in time) or in a dynamic context (the competitive capacity, i.e., the combination of an object’s factors in function of time). When defining competitiveness, one should also indicate its expected condition, i.e., describe a competitive operator’s characteristics with respect to other parties [1]. Łukiewska [2] also notes that no consistent methods and no structured metrics have yet been developed to assess operators’ competitiveness under consideration.

In an era of globalization, countries are committed to increasing exports and seeking greater specialization in exporting products that allow them to become more competitive [3]. This is because competitiveness means the capacity to face international rivals and to maintain significant growth of domestic demand while keeping a stable balance of current accounts [4]. In its international dimension, competitiveness means a general acceptance of products from the country concerned, which increases its share in export markets. Country-level competitiveness is determined by several factors, including natural resources, capital, economic infrastructure, human capital, and the ability to adapt to the ever-changing operating conditions in both domestic and international goods, services, and production markets.

The competitive position determines the outcome of competitive activities. In other words, it is the rank an operator manages to achieve in the hierarchy of objects competing with one another [5]. The international competitive position is usually examined on an ex-post basis and refers to the share of a country’s economy in global trade [6,7,8]. The greater the share, the stronger the country’s competitive position. However, in the short term, a small share and a relatively weaker competitive position do not necessarily mean being uncompetitive. Indeed, it could be due to volatile factors that play a vital role in agricultural trade because, in that case, the trade volume is driven by the production volume, which, in turn, depends on aspects such as weather trends over a season. This is especially true for agricultural raw materials of plant origin, including cereals, oilseeds, and fruit and vegetables.

In 2022, the value of global trade in fruit and vegetables was USD 224 billion, and the share of fruit and vegetables in global agricultural trade accounted for 11%. In the European Union, the trade in fruit and vegetables was worth USD 63 billion, representing 28% of the global trade value for these goods. In addition to crop volumes, the amount and structure of trade were influenced by the complementary production structure between EU countries and its trade partners. The level of trade barriers, the geographical distance between the markets, and the similarity of consumer preferences (which strengthens the intra-sectoral nature of trade in fruit and vegetables) also played a role [9].

The Single European Market (SEM) is the cornerstone of European integration [10] and represents one of the largest economic areas globally. Joining the EU structures means enjoying a complete liberalization of trade in all goods, including agri-food products, within the EU and adopting the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy with respect to third countries. This changes the conditions for competing and, as shown by experience from successive enlargements of the EU, triggers strong trade creation and shift effects in countries joining the EU (which leads to considerable concentration of trade within the SEM). Countries that witnessed a sharp increase in agri-food exports to the EU as a consequence of entering the customs union include Poland. Despite some concerns involved in the accession to the EU, Polish producers and exporters proved to be in a position to effectively operate in the highly competitive SEM. At the same time, this increased the importance of the agri-food sector in foreign trade and reinforced Poland as a net exporter of agri-food products. The positive trade performance resulted from a quick adaptation of the agri-food industry to the SEM; this includes obtaining appropriate certificates for selling products in EU markets and gaining insightful knowledge of the rules and procedures applicable to intra-EU trade [11,12].

Both during the accession negotiations and after joining the EU, several analyses were carried out in Poland to estimate the competitive position of its agri-food sector in the SEM [9,13,14]. Based on those investigations, it can be concluded that Poland’s trade in agri-food products has increased, while Poland’s comparative advantages in the Single European Market have been steadily improving since joining the EU. Relative trade advantages were higher and more durable for labor-intensive agricultural raw materials or food products produced at lower costs, mostly due to lower raw material prices and processing margins [15].

Similar studies on the level of comparative advantages in agri-food trade within the EU were also carried out for other countries joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 [9,16,17,18,19]. In all cases, the competitive position of agri-food sectors improved, thanks to the greater trade openness. All of the papers mentioned above offer us the answer to the question of whether comparative advantages gained in the agri-food trade within the EU are the source of beneficial export specializations and allow analyzed countries to maximize gains from trade. From the results of those studies regarding the contemporary agri-food trade, especially when creating a new free trade area, the classical model of trade based on Ricardian’s comparative advantage theory is still in force. This paper is motivated by the need to verify whether this trade model applies to current EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership members. The main aim of this study is to assess the competitive position of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in trading fruit and vegetables in the Single European Market in 2009 and 2023. We intend to identify whether these countries are competitive in fruit and vegetable trade with the EU and whether their comparative advantages provide them with a beneficial export specialization. Since primary products are major export specializations in less developed countries aspiring for EU membership, fruit and vegetable items were selected to prove the timeliness of the comparative advantage theory.

Our study fills the literature gap by recognizing the competitive position of the analyzed countries in fruit and vegetable trade with the EU. There are only a few analyses describing the competitiveness of the agri-food sectors of those countries in the EU or global market. Excluding the paper by Jankowska [20], most consider just one or two countries, not the entire sample of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership members. Stepasyuk and Titenko [21] and Ambroziak [22] focus on Ukraine. Camanzi et al., Karaman et al., Jabkowski and Kupsik [23,24,25] refer to the Turkey’s case. Cimpoies [26] and Lucasenco and Ceban [27] analyze the competitiveness of Moldovan agri-food products, while Ambroziak [28] considers Georgia’s agri-food sector’s competitive position in the EU market. Comparative advantages of agri-food sectors in Serbia and the rest of Western Balkan countries were assessed, e.g., by Božić and Nikolić and [29,30] and Matkovski et al. [31,32]. It should also be emphasized that none of these papers includes a detailed fruit and vegetable trade analysis in the investigated bilateral relation. From a methodological point of view, except for the study by Jabkowski and Kupsik [25], the existing studies employ the Balassa or Vollrath approaches to assess competitiveness.

Considering the above, the novelty and contributions of this paper are threefold. Firstly, as far as we know, this is the first detailed study providing a comparative analysis of the competitive position of the Eastern Partnership members and EU candidate countries’ fruit and vegetable industries in the EU market. Secondly, we used the Widodo [33] mapping tool, a more complex way to assess competitiveness than the Vollrath or Balassa approaches. Thirdly, verifying whether the comparative advantages are the source of gains from trade or, in other words, whether the classical trade theory is still relevant offers a more utilitarian value of the study consisting of giving some recommendations to optimize the export structure and thus maximize gains from trade.

2. Materials and Methods

So far, research on the agri-food sector’s competitiveness has relied on several metrics. The most popular ones include the revealed comparative advantage index, used by authors such as in [34] to analyze the trade between Poland and Germany. Bułkowska and Bazhenova [35] used it to examine the consequences of the war in Ukraine for the Polish agri-food trade. In contrast, Kraciński and Wicki [5] relied on it to assess the competitive position of Polish apples and concentrated apple juice in foreign markets. Market-share and trade-share indexes were also used in analyzing the international competitiveness of the agri-food sector by Kacperska [36], Pawlak and Poczta [11], and Radomska et al. [37]. To make these analyses more comprehensive, the competitive position of countries under consideration was assessed in absolute and relative terms; it was measured using both the revealed comparative advantage index and the metric for estimating the degree of export specialization.

This paper presents the amount and balance of bilateral trade in fruit and vegetables between EU member candidates and Eastern Partnership countries on the one hand and the EU on the other. As the next step, it estimates their specialization level and comparative advantages in the Single European Market. This was performed using the index of revealed comparative advantages, i.e., the Balassa Revealed Comparative Advantage Index (RCA), the Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantage (RSCA), and the Lafay’s Trade Balance Index (TBI). Once calculated, the indexes served as a basis for establishing the Widodo scheme, which allowed the countries to consider their competitive position in trading with EU members. The analysis was performed for 2009 and 2023. This time scope can be regarded as sufficient to examine the changes resulting from the integration of European Union markets with candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries, which rearranged institutional conditions for bilateral trade. The analyses of competitive positions relied on data retrieved from Eurostat’s Comext resources.

The revealed comparative advantage index (RCA) is a measure used to assess a country’s international competitiveness in the export of specific products. Balassa’s revealed comparative advantage index (RCA) is determined from the formula as follows:

$${\mathrm{R}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}={\mathrm{R}\mathrm{X}\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}=\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}/{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{k}}\right)/\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{j}}/{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{k}}\right)$$

(1)

where the following is defined:

X: export;

i: country under investigation;

j: product (product group) under investigation;

k: all goods;

n: reference country (countries).

An RCA value above 1 means that a country achieves a comparative advantage, which shows that a particular product accounts for a relatively larger share of that country’s exports than in global trade. Lower RCA values indicate a comparative disadvantage [38]. The RCA makes it possible to identify export specialization but has important limitations. The indicator relies solely on export data, ignoring imports, which leads to an incomplete picture of true competitiveness. In addition, the RCA index has a problem with value asymmetry, making it difficult to compare results for different value ranges. In response to these limitations, modifications have been developed, such as the symmetric RCA (RSCA), which eliminates these difficulties, allowing for more consistent analysis [38].

One proposed measure is the so-called revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) [39]. The normalized RCA ratio, as (RCA − 1)/(RCA + 1), ranges from −1.0 to +1.0. Although De Benedictis and Tamberi [40] have pointed out that this transformation of the RCA ratio has little interpretive benefit; it is used along with the Lafay trade balance index (TBI) to build two-dimensional matrices to facilitate analyses of countries’ comparative advantages and identify key exported products that contribute most to the trade balance and are the source of trade gains. This “product mapping” method, originally developed by Widodo, has been used in a number of studies [41].

The revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) indicators resulted from a transformation of the standard Balassa revealed comparative advantage (RCA) are as follows:

RSCA_ij = (RCA_ij − 1)/(RCA_ij + 1)

(2)

where the following are defined:

RCA_ij: the revealed comparative advantage index;

i: product;

j: country.

The transformation from RCA to RSCA allowed the elimination of some interpretation difficulties caused by the asymmetric distribution and the absence of a finite upper boundary for RCA. RSCA values fall within the interval of [−1, 1], with positive and negative values being indicative of the existence and absence of a comparative advantage, respectively. Keeping in mind that the reliability of studies based exclusively on RSCA was called into question [40], the analysis was enhanced with the trade balance index, which enables a more complete interpretation of generated comparative advantages. TBI values also fall into the interval [−1, 1], and the index is expressed with the following formula:

TBI_ij = (X_ij − M_ij)/(X_ij + M_ij)

(3)

where the following is defined:

X: exports;

M: imports;

i: commodity;

j: country.

Positive TBI values indicate an export-specialized country and represent a trade surplus, whereas negative values are interpreted as the absence of specialization and indicate countries other than net importers of the product or product group concerned [42,43].

Combined with Lafay’s Trade Balance Index (TBI), the RSCA allows the formation of a matrix [33] for an objective assessment of the competitiveness of the countries considered with respect to certain commodities in selected markets. The matrices allow the splitting of the countries covered by this analysis into four groups by level of comparative advantage and export specialization (Figure 1). Therefore, they provided a basis for checking whether a country has a revealed comparative advantage and if it is a net importer or exporter of certain commodities. Indeed, Widodo [33] believed that a situation may occur where a country has a revealed comparative advantage in producing a commodity (RSCA_ij > 0) while not being a net exporter of it. In another case, a country may have a negative RSCA_ij for a specific commodity, which does not necessarily mean it is a net importer of it [20].

In the matrix (Figure 1), the most desirable position is Group A. The placement of a product/country in this part of the matrix means that the product/country has both a high comparative advantage and a positive trade balance, indicating the country’s strong competitiveness and export specialization in the category. The product located in this group is the main source of export earnings, and the country has a significant advantage over other competitors. The least satisfactory part of the matrix is Group D, which means that the product/country not only has no comparative advantage but also has a negative trade balance. This means that the country is dependent on imports of this product, and its competitiveness in international markets in this category is low. Products in Group D are poorly competitive. This situation should cause changes in trade strategy or investments intended to improve productivity and production quality.

The Widodo matrix is a more useful tool for assessing competitiveness, as it combines comparative advantage with the trade balance, providing a more complete picture than other measures such as the RCA or other RCA-based indices. Unlike the RCA, which only considers exports, the Widodo matrix assesses both the export and import situation, identifying products that generate a trade surplus and those that contribute to a deficit. The Widodo matrix allows for a more comprehensive analysis and a better understanding of the market situation, making it a more precise tool than other indicators.

The method used in this article is novel because it is the first time it has been applied to positioning countries and their competitive advantages in the foreign market in a selected group of products. Until now, this matrix has only been used to analyze the positioning of individual products in a given country [25,43,45,46,47,48], not entire countries in terms of their export position, making this attempt a pioneering adaptation of the analytical tool.

3. Results

3.1. Value of Trade in Fruit and Vegetables

The study presented in this paper aims to assess the competitive position of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in trading fruit and vegetables in the Single European Market in 2009 and 2023. In 2023, the share of these countries in total fruit and vegetable imports to the EU was 8% and 4%, respectively. This study will allow us to verify whether having the status of an EU candidate country and establishing a preferential trade area have contributed to strengthening the competitive position of countries subject to preferential terms of trade. Findings from this research could provide grounds for formulating recommendations for trade policymakers and business practitioners to assess the rationality of the existing geographic structure and product mix of trade in commodities covered by the analysis (from the perspective of the EU trade partners) and to lay grounds for a reorientation of trade processes, where needed.

The period of 2009–2023 saw considerable growth in the value of exports and imports of both fruit and vegetables between the European Union on the one hand and EU member candidates and Eastern Partnership countries on the other (

Table 1. Exports, imports, and net trade of fruits between the EU, EU candidate countries, and Eastern Partnership countries in 2009 and 2023 (EUR million).

Countries		2009			2023		Export Growth Rate (2009 = 100)	Import Growth Rate (2009 = 100)
	Exports	Imports	Net Trade	Exports	Imports	Net Trade
Armenia	0.16	0.09	0.08	0.51	1.59	−1.08	308.8	1835.9
Albania	2.14	22.91	−20.77	23.86	23.86	0.00	1115.3	104.2
Azerbaijan	16.71	3.95	12.76	45.33	5.35	39.98	271.2	135.4
Bosnia and Herzegovina	9.78	22.80	−13.02	21.19	29.22	−8.03	216.6	128.2
Belarus	18.22	61.05	−42.84	6.07	154.41	−148.34	33.3	252.9
Moldova	22.27	10.52	11.74	121.84	31.55	90.29	547.1	299.7
Montenegro	1.01	3.57	−2.56	0.70	12.73	−12.03	68.8	356.1
Macedonia	7.25	11.17	−3.92	21.18	20.87	0.30	292.0	186.9
Serbia	190.71	44.03	146.68	439.57	113.49	326.08	230.5	257.7
Georgia	32.04	0.98	31.06	52.37	11.52	40.85	163.4	1175.2
Turkey	1028.30	26.16	1002.13	1533.15	36.27	1496.88	149.1	138.6
Ukraine	41.23	126.60	−85.37	214.15	171.72	42.43	519.4	135.6

Source: own calculations based on Comext–Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

and

Table 2. Exports, imports, and net trade of vegetables between the EU, EU candidate countries, and Eastern Partnership countries in 2009 and 2023 (EUR million).

Countries		2009			2023		Export Growth Rate (2009 = 100)	Import Growth Rate (2009 = 100)
	Exports	Imports	Net Trade	Exports	Imports	Net Trade
Armenia	0.002	0.54	−0.53	0.21	2.82	−2.61	13,505.9	526.4
Albania	0.96	4.29	−3.33	54.93	13.11	41.82	5733.3	305.3
Azerbaijan	0.00	0.15	−0.15	1.65	2.07	−0.42		1398.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina	8.69	10.09	−1.40	17.63	24.66	−7.03	202.9	244.4
Belarus	23.97	14.78	9.18	28.35	23.61	4.74	118.3	159.7
Moldova	0.13	5.99	−5.86	5.60	21.80	−16.20	4198.2	363.8
Montenegro	3.36	1.39	1.97	4.34	9.12	−4.78	129.1	657.1
Macedonia	30.20	2.80	27.40	60.45	5.93	54.52	200.2	211.9
Serbia	36.56	12.03	24.53	80.60	90.57	−9.97	220.5	752.8
Georgia	0.19	0.57	−0.38	0.13	2.70	−2.57	66.5	473.6
Turkey	287.94	13.99	273.95	892.14	39.09	853.05	309.8	279.5
Ukraine	16.74	24.45	−7.71	42.61	124.75	−82.14	254.6	510.3

Source: own calculations based on Comext–Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

). In regard to fruits, the greatest revenue from exports to EU markets was earned by Turkey. Due to its production potential and favorable climate conditions, Turkey is the leading global producer of cherries, apricots, hazelnuts, and figs while also being the main exporter of them, primarily to Eastern Europe [15]. Over the study period, the value of fruit sold from Turkey to the EU grew by 49%, from EUR 1028.3 million to EUR 1533.15 million (Table 1). Despite such a sharp increase in value, the share of fruit exports to total agri-food exports from Turkey to the EU declined by 15.1 percentage points (

Table 3. Share of fruit and vegetables in total agri-food trade with the EU in EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in 2009 and 2023 (%).

Countries	2009				2023
	Fruits		Vegetables		Fruits		Vegetables
	Exports	Imports	Exports	Imports	Exports	Imports	Exports	Imports
Armenia	3.5	0.2	0.0	1.2	2.4	0.7	1.0	1.3
Albania	5.4	7.3	2.4	1.4	7.8	2.9	17.9	1.6
Azerbaijan	76.4	2.6	0.0	0.1	79.8	2.2	2.9	0.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina	7.6	3.3	6.7	1.5	8.7	2.3	7.3	1.9
Belarus	16.4	16.1	21.5	3.9	1.9	17.2	8.7	2.6
Moldova	14.9	8.5	0.1	4.8	13.8	5.1	0.6	3.5
Montenegro	13.7	3.0	45.3	1.2	3.0	3.5	18.7	2.5
Macedonia	4.1	4.7	17.2	1.2	5.4	3.7	15.3	1.1
Serbia	27.0	9.1	5.2	2.5	21.1	4.7	3.9	3.7
Georgia	72.0	1.4	0.4	0.8	33.8	2.3	0.1	0.5
Turkey	36.8	2.0	10.3	1.1	21.7	0.8	12.6	0.9
Ukraine	2.5	9.9	1.0	1.9	1.8	4.8	0.4	3.5

Source: own elaboration based on Comext–Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

), reflecting growth in exports of all agri-food commodities.

Serbia is the second largest exporter of fruits (in terms of value) to the EU. In 2009, its fruit exports were worth EUR 190.7 million and reached EUR 439.6 million (1.5 times more) in 2023 (Table 1). For Serbia, the EU market has become the main target for fruit exports, where it can compete with other countries [49]. In 2023, Serbian fruit exports to the European Union accounted for 21.1% of total agri-food exports from Serbia to the EU. In turn, Armenia was the country least engaged in trading fruit with the EU. This is because the main outlet for Armenian fruit and vegetables is Russia. In 2023, Armenia earned 99% and 98%, respectively, of its fruit and vegetable export revenue from the Russian market [50].

Between 2009 and 2023, the greatest increase in the value of fruit exports to the EU was recorded in Ukraine; it went up more than five times, whereas the growth rate for imports was barely 35.6%. This significantly benefited the Ukrainian net trade value, which transitioned from a negative amount of EUR 85.4 million in the first year covered by the analysis to a positive level of EUR 42.43 million 14 years later. It results from the European Union’s geographical proximity to Ukraine, preferential conditions for trading with EU countries, and the conflict with Russia, which initially involved a Russian embargo on Ukrainian imports and ultimately led to war [20]. Only Belarus and Montenegro saw a decrease in the value of fruit exports to the EU by 66.7% and 31.2%, respectively, while imports increased by 2.5 times and 3.5 times, respectively, during this period. Due to its land relief, Montenegro is not an agricultural country; its economy primarily focuses on tourism, providing the most significant benefits [51]. Nearly all countries covered by this study improved their balance of trade in fruits with the EU. The only countries that recorded a decline in their net trade were members of the net importer groups: Montenegro, Belarus, and Armenia. In Belarus, fruit imports from the European Union accounted for as much as 17.2% of the total agri-food imports from the EU in 2023 (Table 3). This was the highest share of all countries covered by this study.

The most sold fruits by Eastern Partnership and EU candidate countries are grapes, nuts, peaches, plums, and apricots. These fruits are very prevalent in European markets. Favorable climatic conditions for growing these fruits enhance their quality in regions such as Turkey, Serbia, and Moldova. These countries specialize in growing high-value-added fruits, which allows them to compete successfully in international markets, especially in the EU [52].

Like the fruit case, Turkey exported the most significant volume of vegetables to the EU market. In 2009, Turkish vegetable exports to the European Union were worth EUR 287.94 million; in 2023, they tripled to EUR 892.14.9 million (Table 3). Tomato exports to the EU in 2023 alone were worth EUR 332.3 million [52]. The share of vegetables in total Turkish agri-food exports to the EU was stable throughout the study period and remained at 10–12% (Table 3). Although the value of vegetable imports from the EU to Turkey nearly tripled over that period, its share in total agri-food imports from the EU (EUR 39.9 million) was comparable in 2009 and 2023 (about 1%) (Table 3). The smallest vegetable exports to the EU were recorded in Georgia.

Albanian vegetable exports to the EU increased 57 times over the study period, reaching EUR 54.93 million in 2023. Exporting vegetables to the EU had a large share in the Albanian agri-food exports mix; between 2009 and 2023, the share of vegetable exports in total agri-food exports to the EU increased by 15.5 percentage points and reached 17.9% (Table 3). The geographic proximity of EU member countries such as Greece or Italy could cause this. Thus, transport and logistics costs are relatively small, and delivery times are short, which is of fundamental importance in preserving the highest quality of products [53]. The development of vegetable production in Albania is driven by a favorable climate, high-quality soils, low use of chemicals, and the availability of a cheap workforce, as necessary for labor-intensive manufacturing processes [54,55]. Tomatoes, cucumbers, and cabbages were mainly exported. These products provide the countries surveyed with a better competitive position due to the favorable climate for growing them and specialization in production [56,57].

The greatest increase in the value of vegetable imports from the EU was recorded in Ukraine. The war resulted in the discontinuation of the cultivation of many crops, and therefore, imports were the only way of addressing the population’s needs. Imports from the EU increased five times to EUR 124.8 million in 2023. Serbia is ranked second by value of vegetable imports from the EU, which increased more than 7.5 times against the 2009 baseline and attained EUR 90.6 million in 2023. Between 2009 and 2023, growth in vegetable imports was also witnessed in Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this case, vegetable imports from the EU increased 14 and 5 times, respectively, but the value of imports continued to be small. In 2023, vegetables imported from the EU to Azerbaijan and Armenia were worth EUR 2 million and EUR 2.8 million, respectively. Between 2009 and 2023, most countries covered by this analysis saw a decline in their net trade of vegetables. Only Albania, Macedonia, and Turkey increased the difference between exports and imports compared to 2009. In 2023, all countries listed above were in the net exporter’s group. Due to political decisions related to the war in Ukraine, the European Union imposed a trade embargo on Belarus, which, in response, placed an embargo on trading with the EU. In early 2022, the embargo entered into force and included agri-food products. Due to the trading ban, Belarus imported much less vegetables from the EU in 2023 than in previous years.

3.2. Competitive Position of EU Candidate Countries and Eastern Partnership Countries in Trading with the European Union

The analysis of the competitive position of the European Union candidate and Eastern Partnership countries is an important part of assessing their ability to integrate into the EU internal market. One of the basic tools used to assess the export specialization of these countries is the index of revealed comparative advantage (RCA), which allows the determination of their relative competitiveness in international trade [45].

Changes in the comparative advantage (RCA) for fruits and vegetables in 2009 and 2023 make it possible to assess the export competitiveness of the countries studied (

Table 4. Comparative advantages of Eastern Partnership and EU candidate countries in fruit and vegetable trade with the EU in 2009 and 2023.

Countries	Fruits		Vegetables
	RCA
	2009	2023	2009	2023
Armenia	18.66	3.42	0.03	0.80
Albania	0.74	2.70	1.77	11.32
Azerbaijan	29.81	36.35	0.00	3.42
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2.26	3.81	4.54	3.76
Belarus	1.01	0.11	5.51	3.30
Moldova	1.76	2.72	0.02	0.18
Montenegro	4.55	0.87	38.87	7.53
Macedonia	0.88	1.45	14.54	14.58
Serbia	2.96	4.51	2.08	1.04
Georgia	50.82	14.67	0.52	0.15
Turkey	18.45	26.84	9.66	14.49
Ukraine	0.25	0.38	0.52	0.10

Source: own elaboration based on Comext–Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

). The highest comparative advantage in fruit exports in both analyzed years was maintained by Azerbaijan, which increased the RCA index from 29.81 in 2009 to 36.35 in 2023, strengthening the country’s position in the international market. Georgia, on the other hand, which had a very high index in 2009 (50.82), saw a significant decline to 14.67 in 2023, indicating a deterioration in competitiveness in fruit exports. Turkey shows an increase in the RCA from 18.45 to 26.84. This is particularly significant because Turkey was the largest fruit exporter of all the countries analyzed, despite the fact that other countries had higher RCAs; their share of trade was much smaller, making them less important partners for the EU [25].

In 2023, Albania saw a marked increase in the RCA for vegetable exports from 1.77 to 11.32, indicating a dynamic improvement in its competitive position in this segment. Montenegro had one of the highest comparative advantages in 2009 (38.87), experiencing a significant decline to 7.53 in 2023. Similarly to fruit exports, Turkey experienced an increase in competitiveness in vegetable exports, reflected in its RCA values rising from 9.66 in 2009 to 14.49 in 2023. Most of the countries surveyed had an RCA index above one, indicating that they had comparative advantages in fruit and vegetable exports. This means that fruits and vegetables accounted for a relatively larger share of the country’s exports than in global trade. Calculations of the RCA index yield results similar to those obtained using the RSCA index, confirming the consistency of the two methods in assessing the comparative advantage of the countries studied.

The procedure for arranging countries by the level of comparative advantage (RSCA) and by the degree of export specialization (TBI) based on the Widodo method demonstrated that in 2009, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Serbia, and Moldova (Group A) had the greatest comparative advantages and a positive balance of fruit trade with the EU. The next quarter of the matrix (B) was composed of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Belarus. While these three countries had comparative advantages, they were net fruit importers in 2009. Macedonia, Ukraine, and Albania formed Group D. They did not have a comparative advantage and were net importers of fruits in their trade relationship with the EU (Figure 2).

In 2023, some noticeable changes occurred following the creation of the Eastern Partnership program and the nomination of European Union candidate countries. Namely, there was an increase in the number of countries that hold a comparative advantage and are net exporters of fruit to the EU (Group A). These included Turkey (which strengthened its competitive advantage), Georgia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Moldova, Albania, and Macedonia. The next section of the matrix (B) was home to Armenia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina. Importantly, Armenia found itself in that group because of losing the comparative advantage it had in 2009. In turn, opposite trends and strengthening of comparative advantages were discovered for Albania and Macedonia, resulting in them moving to Group A. Thanks to EU support programs such as IPARD, Albanian and Macedonian farmers have been able to modernize their farms, improve the quality of production, and adapt to EU standards; this has opened up new export opportunities to the European market [58]. Group C consisted of Ukraine, which transitioned from a net importer to a net exporter but still failed to demonstrate a comparative advantage. Belarus and Montenegro remained members of Group D, i.e., a net importer of fruits from the Single European Market with no comparative advantages (Figure 3).

The group of countries that generated the greatest comparative advantages and were positioned as net exporters in 2009 jointly accounted for 94.2% of total fruit exports from the countries covered by the study to the European Union and reached a positive trade balance of EUR 1204.5 million (

Table 5. Shares of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries (arranged in groups resulting from the Widodo method) in fruit trade with the European Union and bilateral trade balance in 2009 and 2023.

Countries		2009			2023
	Share in Total Exports to the EU (%)	Share in Total Imports from the EU (%)	Balance (EUR Million)	Share in Total Exports to the EU (%)	Share in Total Imports from the EU (%)	Balance (EUR Million)
Group A	94.2	25.7	1204.5	89.3	35.8	1994.4
Group B	2.1	26.2	−58.4	1.9	11.0	−21.1
Group C	x	x	x	8.6	28.0	42.4
Group D	3.7	48.1	−110.1	0.2	25.2	−148.3

Source: own calculations based on Comext–Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

). Exports from countries that do not demonstrate comparative advantages and have a trade deficit with the EU (EUR 110 million, Group D) accounted for barely 3.7% of total exports from the countries covered by the analysis. In turn, they were the target markets for 48.1% of the fruit imported from the EU to Eastern Partnership members and candidate countries (Table 5).

In 2023, there was a noticeable decline in the share of Group A countries in fruit exports from all countries considered to the EU (to a level of ca. 89%). Meanwhile, over the 14-year study period, the share of fruit imports to that group of countries in total fruit imports from the EU to the countries considered grew by 10.1 percentage points (

Table 6. Shares of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries (arranged in groups resulting from the Widodo method) in vegetable trade with the European Union and bilateral trade balance in 2009 and 2023.

Countries		2009			2023
	Share in Total Exports to the EU (%)	Share in Total Imports from the EU (%)	Balance (EUR Million)	Share in Total Exports to the EU (%)	Share in Total Imports from the EU (%)	Balance (EUR Million)
Group A	93.5	49.4	337.0	87.1	22.7	954.1
Group B	2.4	15.8	−4.7	2.0	10.7	−14.8
Group C	x	x	X	X	X	X
Group D	4.2	34.8	−14.6	10.8	66.6	−110.9

Source: own calculations based on Comext-Eurostat data, 15 October 2024.

). In terms of value, fruit exports from the EU to Group A countries increased by EUR 121.1 million (Table 1). However, the bilateral trade balance in that group of countries improved considerably and reached EUR 1994.5 million (Table 5). Group C, which only included Ukraine, recorded a positive trade balance in 2023 due to the increased value of fruit exports. Conversely, fruit imports to Ukraine accounted for 28% of total fruit imports from the EU to the countries considered. Other groups identified in this study recorded a negative balance of fruit trade with the EU. Based on data from Table 5, it can be noted that countries that have a comparative advantage and are net exporters of fruits opened their domestic markets to fruit originating from the European Union. However, increasing the level of imports did not have an adverse effect on their trade balance, which nearly doubled, thus proving their capacity to export fruit efficiently to EU markets.

In 2009, the countries that enjoyed the most favorable competitive situation in vegetable trading with the EU (Group A) were Turkey, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Belarus (Figure 4). They accounted for 93.5% of total vegetable exports from the countries considered to the European Union (Table 6). The next section of the matrix (B), which reflects some comparative advantages, includes net importers of vegetables: Albania, Bosnia, and Herzegovina. The last quarter (D) was composed of the remaining countries: Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan. In 2009, they did not have any comparative advantages in vegetable trade with the EU and formed a group of net importers.

The procedure for arranging countries by the level of comparative advantage (RSCA) and by the degree of export specialization (TBI) based on the Widodo method demonstrated that in 2023, Turkey, Macedonia, Albania, and Belarus (Group A) had strong comparative advantages and a positive balance of vegetable trade with the EU (Figure 5). Technological innovations in the form of greenhouse tomato cultivation in Turkey significantly increase productivity while reducing costs associated with unpredictable weather conditions and seasonality. With controlled conditions such as irrigation systems and protection from extreme weather events, farmers can optimize yields, minimizing losses and maintaining a high competitive position [59]. The countries that demonstrated a comparative advantage while having the position of net importers were Montenegro, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, and Herzegovina. Azerbaijan has improved its competitive position by moving from Group C to Group B. Agricultural development in Azerbaijan is supported by a four-year EU and UNDP project to modernize the fruit and vegetable sector in the Lankaran region. The EUR 5 million project focuses on introducing new technologies, networking farmers, and improving production quality. As a result, Azerbaijan is increasing its competitiveness in international markets [60]. In turn, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Armenia had no comparative advantage and a negative balance of vegetable trade with the EU (Group D) in 2023.

The group of countries that generated the greatest comparative advantages and were net exporters of vegetables in 2009 accounted for 93.5% of total vegetable exports from Eastern Partnership countries and EU candidate countries to the European Union and generated a positive trade balance of EUR 337 million (Table 6). At the same time, they were essential importers of vegetables from the EU. In terms of value, Turkey, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Serbia absorbed 49.4% of vegetable imports from the EU to the countries covered by this study. Countries that did not demonstrate a comparative advantage and were net importers of vegetables from the EU (Group D) had a relatively insignificant share (4.2%) in exports to the EU and a 34.8% share in imports from the SEM. The negative trade balance in that group fluctuated around EUR 14.6 million in 2009 (Table 6).

The share of vegetable exports from countries that had a comparative advantage and were net exporters in their trade relationships with the EU (Group A) declined from 93.5% in 2009 to 87.1% in 2023. At the same time, there was a drop in their share in imports from the EU (from 49.4% to 22.7%) and an improvement in their positive trade balance, which reached EUR 954.1 million in 2023 (Table 6). The share of other country groups in total vegetable exports from all countries considered to the EU varied in the range of 2% in Group B to 10.8% in Group D. The largest share in vegetable imports from the EU was that of the net importers group who did not demonstrate comparative advantages (D). In 2023, that group was the target for 66.6% of vegetable imports from the EU. The next important group of vegetable importers from the EU was Group A (22.7%), whereas Group B had a share of 10.7%.

4. Discussion

So far, the competitive position of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in agri-food trade with the EU has not been broadly examined. However, the competitive advantages of previous EU member candidates have been subject to analyses. For instance, Neldner [61] assessed the competitiveness of the Polish, Romanian, and Bulgarian economies prior to their accession to the EU and during their initial years of membership to EU structures. Based on their share in global exports, the share in exports in their GDP, and the import-to-export ratios, they concluded that Poland stood out with a high level of competitiveness and was the only country to have generated surpluses in the current account since 2012. However, it was a macroeconomic study that did not include sector-level analyses. An analysis of the intra-EU agri-food trade of countries that joined the EU in 2004 was carried out by Pawlak [9]. They assessed the comparative advantages of the countries considered using a carefully selected set of ex-post indicators of international competitive position, including the export-specialization index (SI), the exports-to-imports coverage ratio (CR), the export revealed comparative advantage index (XRCA), the relative import penetration index (MRCA), the relative trade advantage (RTA), and the Grubel–Lloyd intra-industry trade index (IIT). It followed from their analyses that the inclusion of Central and Eastern European members in the SME caused a trade creation effect for agri-food products in all countries considered. Poland and Hungary had the strongest competitive position in the SEM; in terms of product ranges, the level of their comparative advantages was higher for labor-intensive products and goods requiring a greater degree of processing. This was due to their labor costs and processing margins being relatively smaller than in Western European countries. In turn, EU-15 members demonstrated a competitive advantage in trade in capital-intensive products, which depend on technological maturity. The global competitiveness of the Polish agri-food sector compared to other countries that joined the EU in 2004 was analyzed by Szczepaniak [62]. They used the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and Lafay’s indexes to demonstrate that the Polish agri-food sector was already competitive in the global market before the accession to the EU and that Poland continued to improve its competitive position after 2004.

It follows from the above that the analyses in the article are among the first on the competitive position of the agri-food sector of the EU candidate and Eastern Partnership countries in the Single European Market. They are of great cognitive value and allow us to assess the rationality of export specialization implemented in the fruit and vegetable trade. In a more practical sense, the research results can be used to formulate recommendations for trade and agricultural policymakers and business practitioners. This is because they make it possible not only to assess the consistency of the current geographic and assortment structure of trade in agri-food goods with EU countries with the theory of comparative advantages but also provide a basis for inferring a possible reorientation of these structures to optimize the benefits achieved by the analyzed countries from trade in fruits and vegetables with the EU.

To make the agri-food export structure relevant for maximizing trade gains, it is also necessary to link past trade developments to the most recent and expected economic and trade trends. One of the key factors affecting the foreign trade of individual countries in the analyzed period was the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was an exogenous shock shaping both the volume and structure of trade. However, it must be stressed that despite the global disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the agri-food sector proved relatively resilient to these shocks. Although there was a temporary drop in the value of food exports and imports in the first months of the pandemic, trade in these goods quickly returned to earlier levels. This is due to the fact that agri-food products are primary commodities, and their demand is characterized by low-income elasticity. In addition, during the pandemic, governments in many countries introduced policies to mitigate the economic impact, which further stabilized the food trade [63]. Similar phenomena could have been observed in the trade of fruits and vegetables in the countries analyzed. Despite an initial slight decline in trade, trade in these products quickly returned to pre-pandemic levels. It is worth noting that these countries are characterized by a seasonal increase in exports of fruits and vegetables to the EU, which further encouraged the recovery of trade. The short-lived restrictions on trade testify to stable demand for these goods in foreign markets, indicating further potential for the development of trade in this area.

In the years under review, the Eastern Partnership and EU candidate countries saw a decline in the use of mineral fertilizers such as nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium, a reason that could be attributed to the restructuring of the agricultural sector, changes in agronomic practices, limited access to inputs, and increased environmental awareness. These factors, combined with sustainable development policies, may have reduced fertilizer intensity, potentially reducing the yields and quality of agricultural products and weakening their competitiveness in fruit and vegetable markets. However, the reduced use of chemical fertilizers could provide an advantage in organic markets, provided investment is made in certification and promotion of these products [64].

If the Eastern Partnership and candidate countries join the EU, they will be required to adhere to the principles of the European Green Deal (EGD). The main goal of the EGD is to achieve EU climate neutrality by 2050 and create a more sustainable food system. A key element of this plan for the agri-food sector is the “Farm to Fork” strategy, which envisions, among other things, a 50% reduction in pesticide use, a 20% reduction in fertilizer use, and an increase in organic acreage to 25% by 2030 [65,66]. For future EU members, this means implementing these ambitious goals, which will require significant changes in agriculture. In addition to the challenges posed by the transition, these countries will gain the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of their products in the European market by implementing sustainable practices and innovations in the agricultural sector.

5. Conclusions

The progress in globalization and economic integration processes triggers continuous changes in how business is performed in domestic and international markets. An operator’s ability to adapt to changing conditions and effectively transform their competitive potential into benefits testifies to their competitive position at the micro-, meso-, and macro-economic levels.

The study presented in this paper aimed to assess the competitive position of EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership countries in trading fruit and vegetables in the Single European Market in 2009 and 2023. The analyses proved that most countries covered by the study strengthened their comparative advantages in trading with the EU and deepened their export specialization, as reflected in the growing net bilateral trade.

This study period saw considerable growth in exports and imports of fruit and vegetables between the European Union on the one hand and EU member candidates and Eastern Partnership countries on the other. The leading exporter of both fruit and vegetables to the EU was Turkey. It generated the greatest comparative advantages of all countries considered and demonstrated a high degree of export specialization. Its favorable competitive position in the SEM mainly resulted from its production potential and relative geographic proximity to the EU. Over the study period, Serbia became the second largest exporter of fruit and vegetables to the EU (in terms of value); fruits accounted for a large part of total agri-food exports from Serbia to the EU. However, while Serbia remained a net exporter of fruits and generated a comparative advantage in that area, it moved from being a net exporter of vegetables (A) to a net importer position (D). Considerable growth in fruit exports to the EU was also witnessed in Ukraine, which contributed to a substantial improvement of its trade balance. The key drivers of trade with the EU included the rising demand in EU member markets encouraged by shifts in consumption patterns and the adoption of healthy diets, the improving population’s purchasing power, and their willingness to buy diversified products to satisfy more and more differentiated needs. Price and cost factors underlying the theory of comparative advantage also play a crucial role in enhancing bilateral trade between the European Union, on the one hand, and EU member candidates and Eastern Partnership countries, on the other.

To summarize, it may be concluded that acquiring the status of an EU candidate country and creating a preferential trade area resulted in a considerable increase in fruit and vegetable trade between the European Union and the countries covered by this study. This aligns with the theory of regional integration and proves that trade openness can enhance the competitive position at the sectoral level. It also allows us to suppose that the accession of the analyzed countries to the EU will result in the typical trade creation and diversion effects that have already been observed in the agri-food trade of the new EU member states in the previous enlargements. The results from the study showed that most of the investigated countries strengthened their competitive position in the Single European Market as they became covered by preferential trade conditions. It may be concluded that their comparative advantages provided a basis for a beneficial export specialization, which is consistent with the assumptions behind the classical theory of foreign trade. It shows the continuous relevance of that theory in explaining the volume and structure of trade in agri-food products. When considering the factors determining competitiveness, it may also be stated that the neoclassical theory of factor endowment developed by Heckscher, Ohlin, and Samuelson supports the optimization of agri-food export specialization in the analyzed countries. Evidence from the EU candidate countries and Eastern Partnership members also confirms the importance of institutional factors, including bilateral trade policies and trade agreements, in boosting trade performance and shaping international competitive position.

As part of further studies, it would be worthwhile to verify whether the patterns of bilateral trade in other groups of agri-food products also comply with the structure of comparative advantages demonstrated by these countries. This would allow us to assess the rationality of the product mix of bilateral agri-food trade between Eastern Partnership countries, EU candidate countries, and the EU and formulate recommendations, if any, on adjusting the mix of products traded. Well-targeted agricultural policies enhancing competitiveness are another topical issue for the analyzed countries. It would be necessary to support investments that foster changes in the farm structure and improve agricultural productivity, which, in most cases and at current levels, are vital factors limiting competitiveness in the farming sectors of those countries. Simultaneously, trade policies aiming at increasing trade openness and expanding access to foreign markets should be adopted.

An assessment of the competitive position based on trade and market share indicators only, even if widely used and accepted in the literature on the subject, may appear as a limitation of this study. In the course of further research, it would be valuable to employ a more comprehensive approach to measuring the competitive capacity of the main agri-food industries in the analyzed countries in the EU market using both trade and economic indicators.