IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v29y2006i10p1329-1346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Arne Melchior

Abstract

This article reviews some recent developments in Norway's trade policy, in the light of the WTO's Trade Policy Review of Norway, 2004. A main focus is on the relationship between MFN trade policy and Norway's numerous preferential trade arrangements. In spite of a growing number of free trade agreements the paper suggests that Norway's trade regime has not become more discriminatory. The reason is that cuts in MFN tariffs as well as improvements in GSP have eroded preference margins in manufacturing faster than the coverage of free trade agreements has expanded. As a result of liberalisation, the trade regime for manufacturing has become less discriminatory, not more. While Norway is on the whole a liberal‐minded supporter of the world trade system, it has twice in recent history reacted with protectionism. Around 1980, a restrictive quota regime for clothing was implemented. This has later been dismantled, contributing to sharply increased imports from developing countries. For agriculture, Norway has currently high protection, and tariff preferences are limited. It is likely that agricultural protection will be gradually reduced due to the WTO, as well as through free trade agreements and improvements in GSP.

Suggested Citation

  • Arne Melchior, 2006. "The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1329-1346, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:29:y:2006:i:10:p:1329-1346
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00843.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00843.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00843.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. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    2. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    3. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2018. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 15, pages 403-426, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. 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.
    5. Crawford, Jo-Ann & Fiorentino, Roberto V., 2005. "The changing landscape of regional trade agreements," WTO Discussion Papers 8, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9437, December.
    2. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    3. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Distortions to World Trade: Impacts on Agricultural Markets and Farm Incomes," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 168-194.
    4. Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.
    5. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    6. 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.
    7. Jensen, Hans G. & Yu, Wusheng, 2006. "Reforming Agricultural Domestic Support of the EU in the Doha Round: Measurement, Feasibility, and Consequences," Conference papers 331491, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Lofgren, Hans & Diaz-Bonilla, Carolina, 2006. "Economywide Simulations of Ethiopian MDG Strategies," Conference papers 331488, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. 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.
    10. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Hewitt, Joanna, 2008. "Impact evaluation of research by the International Food Policy Research Institute on agricultural trade liberalization, developing countries, and WTO's Doha negotiations:," Impact assessments 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Burrell, Alison M. & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mallado, Aida Gonzalez & Michalek, Jerzy, 2012. "EU market access for agricultural products in the Doha Development Round: A sensitive issue," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126950, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    14. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Stephen N. Karingi & Andrew Mold & Patrick N. Osakwe & Mustapha Sadni Jallab, 2007. "The Doha development round and Africa: partial and general equilibrium analyses of tariff preference erosion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 287-295, December.
    15. Persson, Maria, 2008. "Trade Facilitation and the Extensive and Intensive Margins of Trade," Working Papers 2008:13, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2007. "The Doha agenda and agricultural trade reform: the role of economic analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 77-87, December.
    17. Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
    18. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Doha Merchandise Trade Reform: What Is at Stake for Developing Countries?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 169-195.
    19. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2408, Inter-American Development Bank.
    20. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela, 2007. "Do Global Trade Distortions Still Harm Developing Country Farmers?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(1), pages 108-139, April.

    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:worlde:v:29:y:2006:i:10:p:1329-1346. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    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.