As tariffs have fallen worldwide, the increasing importance of non-tariff policies for further trade liberalization has become widely recognized. The methods for assessing the potential effects of such liberalization have lagged significantly behind those available for analyzing tariffs. This book is the first volume that comprehensively addresses this gap. It has been designed to be useful for both economists and policymakers, especially for those involved in communicating ideas and results between economists and policymakers.
This indispensable book contains cutting-edge discussions of the full range of methodologies used in this area, including business surveys, summary statistics such as effective rates of protection and price gaps, time-series and panel econometrics, and simulation methods such as computable general equilibrium. It covers the entire spectrum of policies under discussion in current trade negotiations, including trade facilitation, services policies, quantitative measures, customs procedures, standards, movement of natural persons, and anti-dumping.
Some prominent contributors to this book are Bijit Bora (World Trade Organization), John Wilson, Tsunehiro Otsuki and Vlad Manole (World Bank), Catherine Mann (Institute of International Economics), Alan Deardorff and Robert Stern (University of Michigan), Joe Francois (Erasmus University), Dean Spinanger (University of Kiel), Antoni Estevadeordal and Kati Suominen (Inter-American Development Bank), Thomas Prusa (Rutgers University), Thomas Hertel and Terrie Walmsley (Purdue University), Scott Bradford (Brigham Young University), Judith Dean, Robert Feinberg, Soamiely Andriamananjara and Marinos Tsigas (US International Trade Commission).
Sample Chapter(s)
Chapter 1: Introduction (526 KB)
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_fmatter
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0001
Non-tariff measures are pervasive. In the area of merchandise trade, although tariffs have fallen worldwide, there has been no shortage of bureaucratic imagination in conceiving new non-tariff measures, or in turning existing regulatory instruments to protectionist ends. In the area of services trade, there is also a growing realisation that domestic regulatory regimes designed to address legitimate market failures may have incidental but unwarranted effects on services trade…
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0002
A key research theme from the papers in this volume is the extent to which analysis of non-tariff measures is data-driven.
The TRAINS database remains a key source of raw data for non-tariff measures affecting goods trade. This allows frequency counts to be computed, but without further analysis it does not provide an indication of economic impacts, nor an indication of policy priorities. Hence additional techniques are required to draw out these implications…
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0003
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0004
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0005
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0006
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0007
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0008
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0009
Trade transaction costs (TTCs) related to border procedures vary depending on the efficiency and integrity of interacting businesses and administrations, the characteristics or kind of goods, and the size and type of businesses. Total costs may be seen as being composed of directly incurred costs, such as expenses relating to supplying information and documents to the related authority, and indirectly incurred costs, such as those arising from procedural delays. Empirical studies suggest that directly and indirectly incurred TTCs each amount to 1- 15 percent of traded goods' value.
Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that TTCs for agro-food products are higher than those for manufactured goods, as agro-food shipments are subject to special border procedures, such as sanitary and phytosanitary controls. Also, small and medium-sized enterprises face cost-disadvantages. In light of this diversity in TTCs, the potential for the realisation of benefits from trade facilitation varies across economies, sectors, and types of traders. In cases where best practices are already applied, further efficiency gains will be difficult to achieve. But if border clearance costs are substantially above those encountered under best practices, room for improvement through suitable measures of trade facilitation will tend to exist.
The model-based analysis of the economic impacts of trade facilitation carried out in this study differs from earlier research by taking several salient features of import and export procedures into account. In particular, the differing characteristics of direct and indirect TTCs are represented, and economy-specific differences in trade facilitation potential are reflected according to empirical information on border waiting times and survey-based evidence on the quality of border processes. In addition, the higher TTCs for agro-food products and small and medium-sized enterprises are incorporated into the analysis.
The analysis does not evaluate the economic and trade impact of specific trade facilitation measures or instruments, such as those that might result from a possible future WTO agreement on trade facilitation. Instead, the aim of the assessment is to better represent empirical characteristics of the border process in model-based analysis and to identify those features that crucially affect the results and that, therefore, deserve to be further explored in future analysis. Several scenarios of hypothetical, multilateral trade facilitation efforts are evaluated, focusing on the comparison of scenarios rather than the overall welfare gains that might result from trade facilitation.
For the purposes of this study, trade facilitation was assumed to lead to a reduction in TTCs by 1 percent of the value of world trade. This assumption is maintained across scenarios, in order to make it possible to meaningfully compare results. On this basis, aggregate welfare gains are estimated to amount to about US$40 billion worldwide, with all economies benefiting and non-OECD economies experiencing the biggest gains in relative terms. If the impact of trade facilitation on TTCs is taken to be more pronounced, then the welfare benefits will also be higher.
Earlier analysis often focused on the cost savings to traders and did not reflect the conceptual differences between direct and indirect TTCs, thereby ignoring macro-economic adjustment needs, such as re-deployment of redundant employees in the logistics sector, associated with direct TTCs. Incorporating these adjustment needs into the analysis provides a more nuanced assessment of the broader impact of trade facilitation and avoids creating inflated expectations concerning the potential benefits from reductions in TTCs. Moreover, the presence of these adjustment costs suggests that trade facilitation measures that focus on reducing indirect TTCs, notably border waiting times, might have a more marked impact on economic welfare than measures that aim at reducing documentation requirements and related direct TTCs. Furthermore, if the existing diversity of TTCs across economies, sectors and traders is represented, a larger share of the global benefits of trade facilitation of up to two-thirds of the total gains is obtained by developing economies than under an assumption of flat reductions in TTCs. Developing economies are also the prime beneficiaries from trade facilitation if the facilitation-generated welfare gains are related to GDP, as they tend to have considerable potential for reductions in TTCs and a relatively high trade to GDP ratio, so that reductions in the costs of importing and exporting affect them to a larger extent than many OECD members. However, the magnitude of the reported welfare gains has to be seen as an upper boundary of the actual gains that might be achievable, as investment needs to realise the assumed reductions in TTCs have not been incorporated into the quantitative analysis, due to lack of consistent, cross-economy information on the full range of costs associated with the implementation of trade facilitation measures.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0010
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0011
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0012
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0013
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0014
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0015
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0016
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0017
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0018
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0019
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0020
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0021
This module provides an overview of the methods that can be used to identify and quantify barriers to international trade in services. Trade in services is customarily classified into four "modes of supply": Mode 1 – services that are traded internationally across borders; Mode 2 – services that require the consumer to be in the location of the producer; Mode 3 – services that require commercial presence in the form of foreign direct investment; and Mode 4 – services that require the temporary cross-border movement of workers. Barriers to any of these forms of trade typically take the form of regulations that either restrict supply or make it more costly. In either case, the economic impact of such a barrier can in principle be quantified as a "tariff equivalent," defined as the percentage tax on foreign suppliers that would have the same effect on the domestic market for the service as is caused by the barrier.
Barriers to trade in services are extremely diverse, making it difficult to classify them in any simple yet detailed way. Broadly, they may be separated on the one hand into those that restrict entry of firms versus those that affect firms' operations, and on the other hand into those that discriminate against foreign service providers versus those that do not. Within these broad categories, barriers have been classified much more finely in terms of characteristics that are appropriate to particular service industries.
Measurement of service barriers can be either direct or indirect. Direct measurement involves documenting barriers that are known to exist, either by extracting information about them from government documents or by questioning those market participants who confront them. Ideally, both of these methods should be based on detailed knowledge of the industries involved, since services differ greatly among themselves in the kinds of regulations that apply to them and in the rationales and effects of these regulations.
Indirect measurement attempts to infer the presence of barriers from their market effects, much as nontariff barriers on trade in goods are often inferred from price differences across borders. Unfortunately, most services do not cross a border in this way, and even those that do are often differentiated sufficiently that comparable prices do not exist inside and outside of economies. Thus indirect measurement has to be even more indirect, drawing heavily on theoretical models of activity in the absence of barriers.
We illustrate these various approaches by citing in some detail a number of studies that have been carried out, some for broad categories of service trade and others for particular sectors. We also, in an appendix, summarize a much larger number of studies. Procedures differ somewhat across studies, but most employ one or more of the following steps:
• Collect the details of regulations and other policies affecting service firms in the economies and/or sectors being examined. Ideally, this information should be collected by systematic surveys of governments and/or firms. However, it may also be possible to infer it less directly from documents prepared for other purposes.
• For each type of regulation or policy, define degrees of restrictiveness and assign scores to each.
• Construct an index of restrictiveness by: weighting the above scores based on subjective judgments; using a statistical methodology; or designing proxy measures.
• Convert these indices of restrictiveness into a set of tariff equivalents by one or more of the following methods.
• Assign judgmental tariff-equivalent values to each component of the index.
• Use data on prices and their determinants in a regression model to estimate the effect on prices.
• Use data on quantities produced or traded in a regression model to estimates the effect on quantities, and convert to tariff equivalents.
• Use the above measures as inputs into a model of production and trade in order to ascertain the economic effects of the presence of changes in the services barriers involved.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0022
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0023
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_0024
The following sections are included:
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701350_bmatter
The following sections are included:
Philippa Dee is currently Visiting Fellow at the Asia-Pacific School of Economics and Government at Australian National University. There she is pursuing research on the effects of liberalizing barriers to trade in services in a number of developing countries. She was previously Assistant Commissioner at the Australian Productivity Commission. There she worked on a wide range of economic policy issues, from evaluating Australia's greenhouse gas policies, R&D policies and National Competition Policy, to evaluating the effects of multilateral Uruguay and APEC trade liberalization. She also contributed to seminal collaborative research with Australian National University in measuring and evaluating barriers to services trade and their accompanying domestic regulatory regimes. She has held a previous academic position at Australian National University and a research position at the Kiel Institute of World Economics. She was educated at Victoria and Canterbury Universities in New Zealand and at Simon Fraser University in Canada.
Michael Ferrantino received his BA from Northwestern University in 1980 and his PhD from Yale University in 1987. After teaching at Drew, Southern Methodist, and Youngstown State Universities, he joined the US International Trade Commission in 1987. His published work focused on empirical topics in international economics, including trade and environment, technological change, the multinational firm, and the relationship between trade and intellectual property.
Sample Chapter(s)
Chapter 1: Introduction (526 KB)