Trade Agreements: The Important Role of Transparency
AbstractInternational trade can be inhibited in two ways; through the use of mechanisms that directly alter the flow of goods and poor transparency in the rules of trade. The former includes tariffs and other border measures, subsidies and non-tariff barriers. The effect on trade flows resulting from issues of transparency is indirect. When the rules of trade are unclear for firms considering investing in trade related activities, the risks associated with those investments increase and investment is inhibited. If there is less investment in trade related activities, trade flows will be reduced. Poor transparency exists in contingent protection measures such as anti-dumping â€“ currently on the agenda of the Rules negotiations at the WTO and â€“ customs and related procedures â€“ on the agenda in the Trade Facilitation negotiations. Increasing transparency can have important trade liberalizing effects. Trade negotiators often focus on achieving a big result from reductions in border measures and subsidies where there may be considerable resistance from protectionist vested interests. If progress can be made in increasing the transparency of trade rules, a less ambitious result may be acceptable for the direct aspects of trade liberalization.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade in its journal Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy.
Volume (Year): 09 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Suite 820, 410 22nd Street East, Saskatoon SK, S7K 5T6
Phone: (306) 244-4800
Fax: (306) 244-7839
Web page: http://www.esteycentre.com/
More information through EDIRC
investment; liberalization; risk; transparency; International Relations/Trade;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gaisford, James D. & Richardson, R. Stephen, 2000. "The TRIPS Disagreement: Should GATT Traditions Have Been Abandoned?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 1(2).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.