IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v56y2008i4p413-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tariff Aggregation and Market Access: An Empirical Assessment for Canada and the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Janine Pelikan
  • Martina Brockmeier

Abstract

We use two alternative approaches to analyze the trade restrictiveness of the Canadian and EU import tariff structures for agricultural goods. The first involves direct, detailed calculations at the tariff line level of summary protection indexes. We compare the newer method of welfare and import equivalent indexes to the standard trade weighted method of aggregation. The second approach involves indirect index calculations, where we map tariff data into a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, and then use the model to generate the summary. Each approach has its advantages. The direct tariff line approach reflects sector detail more comprehensively, but misses the sector and regional linkages captured by the CGE model. As an empirical illustration we simulate the impact of market access liberalization proposed in the WTO draft modality paper of February 2008. Pursuant to a tiered formula, we reduce bound and applied tariffs at the 6‐digit tariff line level. We find that the direct tariff line approach and the hybrid tariff line CGE approach yield similar results. These indicate that access to Canada's agricultural sector is particularly restricted for milk imports from high‐income countries. In contrast, developing countries have particular difficulty accessing the EU's Single Market, where high trade restrictions on beef, sugar, and rice are most relevant. Nous avons utilisé deux méthodes différentes pour analyser le caractère restrictif des structures du tarif douanier à l'importation du Canada et de l'UE pour les produits agricoles. La première consiste en des calculs directs détaillés des indices de protection au niveau de la ligne tarifaire. Nous avons comparé la nouvelle méthode des indices welfare−equivalent et import−equivalentà la méthode d'agrégation standard pondérée en fonction des échanges. La deuxième méthode consiste en des calculs d'indices indirects, où nous insérons les données tarifaires dans un modèle informatique d'équilibre général (IEG) qui sert à générer le sommaire. Chaque méthode a ses avantages. La méthode de la ligne tarifaire directe fait ressortir les détails du secteur, mais ne détecte pas les liens sectoriels et régionaux capturés par le modèle IEG. En tant que modèle empirique, nous avons simulé l'impact de la libéralisation de l'accès aux marchés proposée dans le projet révisé de « modalités » de l'OMC présenté en février 2008. Conformément à la formule étagée, nous avons diminué les limites et avons appliqué des tarifs au niveau de ligne tarifaire à 6 chiffres. Nous avons trouvé que la méthode directe de la ligne tarifaire et la méthode hybride de la ligne tarifaire (IEG) donnaient des résultats similaires. Ces résultats ont indiqué que l'accès au secteur agricole canadien est particulièrement restreint dans le cas des importations de lait provenant des pays à revenu élevé. Par contre, les pays en développement éprouvent de la difficultéà accéder au marché unique de l'UE, où les restrictions commerciales sur le bæuf, le sucre et le riz sont les plus importantes.

Suggested Citation

  • Janine Pelikan & Martina Brockmeier, 2008. "Tariff Aggregation and Market Access: An Empirical Assessment for Canada and the EU," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 413-427, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:413-427
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00138.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00138.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00138.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 1996. "A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 107-125.
    2. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2006. "Binding Overhang and Tariff-Cutting Formulas," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 207-232, July.
    3. Anderson, James E & Neary, J Peter, 1994. "Measuring the Restrictiveness of Trade Policy," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 8(2), pages 151-169, May.
    4. Tatsuo Hatta, 1977. "A Theory of Piecemeal Policy Recommendations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(1), pages 1-21.
    5. Hiau Looi Kee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2008. "Import Demand Elasticities and Trade Distortions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(4), pages 666-682, November.
    6. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2003. "The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(2), pages 627-649, May.
    7. Antimiani, Alessandro & Salvatici, Luca, 2005. "EU Trade Policies: Benchmarking Protection in a General Equilibrium Framework," Working Papers 18856, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    8. Antimiani, Alessandro & Conforti, Piero & Salvatici, Luca, 2006. "Assessing Market Access: Do Developing Countries Really Get a Preferential Treatment?," Working Papers 18870, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    9. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2005. "Measuring the Restrictiveness of International Trade Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012200, December.
    10. Harrigan, James, 1997. "Technology, Factor Supplies, and International Specialization: Estimating the Neoclassical Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 475-494, September.
    11. Antoine Bouët & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2004. "A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database," Working Papers 2004-22, CEPII research center.
    12. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    13. J-C Bureau & L Fulponi & L Salvatici, 2000. "Comparing EU and US trade liberalisation under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(3), pages 259-280, September.
    14. Bureau Jean-Christophe & Salvatici Luca, 2004. "WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: a Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Proposals for the EU and the US," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-35, March.
    15. Pelikan, Janine & Brockmeier, Martina, 2008. "Methods to Aggregate Import Tariffs and their Impacts on Modeling Results," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 23, pages 685-708.
    16. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Himics, Mihaly & Listorti, Giulia & Tonini, Axel, 2020. "Simulated economic impacts in applied trade modelling: A comparison of tariff aggregation approaches," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 344-357.
    2. Kareem, Olayinka Idowu, 2012. "Non – Tariff Barriers and Exports: An Impact Analysis from Africa – EU and Africa – USA Trade Relations," Conference papers 332252, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Pelikan, J. & Brockmeier, M., 2009. "Wohlfahrtswirkungen einer Handelsliberalisierung: Welchen Einfluss hat die Zollaggregation auf die Modellergebnisse?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pelikan, J. & Brockmeier, M., 2009. "Wohlfahrtswirkungen einer Handelsliberalisierung: Welchen Einfluss hat die Zollaggregation auf die Modellergebnisse?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    2. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    3. Antimiani, Alessandro & Fusacchia, Ilaria & Salvatici, Luca, 2016. "Value Added Trade Restrictiveness Indexes. Measuring Protection with Global Value Chains," Conference papers 332745, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Listorti, Giulia & Tonini, Axel & Kempen, Markus & Adenauer, Marcel, 2013. "How to Implement WTO Scenarios in Simulation Models: Linking the TRIMAG Tariff Aggregation Tool to Capri," 135th Seminar, August 28-30, 2013, Belgrade, Serbia 160388, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    6. Chen, Bo & Ma, Hong & Xu, Yuan, 2014. "Measuring China’s trade liberalization: A generalized measure of trade restrictiveness index," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 994-1006.
    7. Alessandro Antimiani & Piero Conforti & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Restrictiveness of Bilateral Trade Policies: A Comparison between Developed and Developing Countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(2), pages 207-224, July.
    8. Ilaria Fusacchia & Alessandro Antimiani & Luca Salvatici, 2021. "An assessment of import tariff costs for Italian exporting firms," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(1), pages 31-56, April.
    9. John Christopher Beghin & Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2017. "Trade restrictiveness indices in the presence of externalities: An application to non-tariff measures," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 5, pages 81-104, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Urban, Kirsten & Brockmeier, Martina & Jensen, Hans Grinsted, 2015. "Evaluating the Effect of Domestic Support on International Trade: A Mercantilist Trade Restrictiveness Approach," Conference papers 332615, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. repec:hal:gmonwp:hal-00961727 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ederington,Josh & Ruta,Michele, 2016. "Non-tariff measures and the world trading system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7661, The World Bank.
    13. Himics, Mihály & Britz, Wolfgang, 2016. "Flexible and welfare-consistent tariff aggregation over exporter regions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 375-387.
    14. Brockmeier, Martina & Bektasoglu, Beyhan, 2014. "Model structure or data aggregation level: Which leads to greater bias of results?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 238-245.
    15. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    16. Bureau Jean-Christophe & Salvatici Luca, 2004. "WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: a Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Proposals for the EU and the US," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-35, March.
    17. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2004. "Welfare vs. Market Access: The Implications of Tariff Structure for Tariff Reform," NBER Working Papers 10730, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. David Laborde & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2017. "Measuring the Impacts of Global Trade Reform with Optimal Aggregators of Distortions," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 403-425, May.
    19. Houssein Guimbard & David Laborde Debucquet & Cristina Mitaritonna, 2009. "A Picture of Tariff Protection Across the World in 2004 MAcMap-HS6, Version 2," Working Papers 2009-22, CEPII research center.
    20. Sharma, Anupa & Grant, Jason & Boys, Kathryn, 2015. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205890, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Luca Salvatici, 2005. "Agricultural trade restrictiveness in the European Union and the United States," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 479-490, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:413-427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.