IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331234.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The New Challenges of the Regional Trade Agenda for the Andean Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Monteagudo, Josefina
  • Rojas, Laura
  • Stabilito, Augusto
  • Watanuki, Masakazu

Abstract

The Andean countries grouped in the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) have adopted a challenging trade negotiating agenda that, in a context of increasing global interdependence, should enable them to promote development and further their integration in the international economy. To that end, they must successfully modernize their economic and institutional structures and adapt them to the more competitive environment created by freer trade. The group is engaged in the negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), as well as for bilateral agreements with the United States and Mercosur; these are the three broadest schedules under negotiation in the Western Hemisphere. All of these agreements offer the Andean countries gains in terms of trade and economic growth, but they also entail substantial structural changes. The latter have significant domestic economic and political implications, and it is important to anticipate those repercussions. This analysis is timely, since there are few studies on the trade negotiations’ economic impact and the policy implications for the Andean countries. In this paper we assess the economic impact of these three regional agreements: the FTAA, whereby the countries of the Western Hemisphere will eliminate all tariff barriers to intra-hemispheric trade; a free trade agreement (FTA) between the CAN and Mercosur; and individual FTAs between four Andean countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) and the United States. We apply a multi-region, multi-sector, comparative, static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, benchmarked in 1997. The policy variable is tariffs, including ad valorem equivalent estimations of specific and mixed tariffs, as well as TRQs. Preliminary results show the impact of these agreements is positive for all the Andean countries. The sectoral impact is especially dynamic in the bilateral agreement with Mercosur, where tariffs are higher and current trade levels are modest. By comparing the economic impact on each CAN member of negotiating bilaterally with the United States, or as a group in the FTAA, we find that the gains from a broader free trade area clearly surpass those of securing access to the US market, because of the tariff preferences that the United States has already granted to four Andean countries. However, we also observe a significant decline in intra-regional flows in these agreements when tariffs are removed. In all three scenarios, all the Andean countries see a strengthening of their traditional comparative advantage in resource-oriented industries and labor-intensive sectors. Market opening alone, however, does not necessarily enhance export diversification and induce a change in economic structure. Nor does it reinforce technology-intensive industries. There will be fewer benefits for agriculture and some less competitive capitalintensive industries. Moreover, these regional agreements will bring about some structural adjustment in production and labor markets that could be painful in the short run. Since it is crucial to identify the effects on sensitive sectors and target key dynamic industries, in order to prepare for both the negotiations and domestic structural adjustment, these sectoral findings are extremely useful.

Suggested Citation

  • Monteagudo, Josefina & Rojas, Laura & Stabilito, Augusto & Watanuki, Masakazu, 2004. "The New Challenges of the Regional Trade Agenda for the Andean Countries," Conference papers 331234, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331234/files/1690.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wayne B Gray & Ronald J Shadbegian, 1994. "Pollution Abatement Costs, Regulation And Plant-Level Productivity," Working Papers 94-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Javorcik Beata Smarzynska & Wei Shang-Jin, 2003. "Pollution Havens and Foreign Direct Investment: Dirty Secret or Popular Myth?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-34, December.
    3. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
    4. Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Harrison, Ann E., 2003. "Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Pargal, Sheoli & Mani, Muthukumara, 2000. "Citizen Activism, Environmental Regulation, and the Location of Industrial Plants: Evidence from India," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(4), pages 829-846, July.
    6. Arvind Panagariya, 1999. "Trade Policy in South Asia: Recent Liberalisation and Future Agenda," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 353-378, May.
    7. Yuquing Xing & Charles Kolstad, 2002. "Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(1), pages 1-22, January.
    8. Judith M. Dean, 2002. "Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 819-842, November.
    9. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    10. Arvind Panagariya, 1999. "The WTO Trade Policy Review of India, 1998," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6), pages 799-824, August.
    11. Satish Chand & Kunal Sen, 2002. "Trade Liberalization and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Indian Manufacturing," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 120-132, February.
    12. James A. Tobey, 1990. "The Effects of Domestic Environmental Policies on Patterns of World Trade: An Empirical Test," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 191-209, May.
    13. Montek S. Ahluwalia, 2002. "Economic Reforms in India Since 1991: Has Gradualism Worked?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 67-88, Summer.
    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. Banse, M. & van Meijl, H. & Tabeau, A. & Woltjer, G., 2007. "Impact of EU Biofuel Policies on World Agricultural and Food Markets," Conference papers 331604, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    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. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    2. Frankel, Jeffrey A., 2009. "Environmental Effects of International Trade," Scholarly Articles 4481652, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    4. He, Jie, 2006. "Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 228-245, November.
    5. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2003. "The Environment and Globalization," NBER Working Papers 10090, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Frankel, Jeffrey, 2008. "Global Environmental Policy and Global Trade Policy," Working Paper Series rwp08-058, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. He, Jie, 2010. "What is the role of openness for China's aggregate industrial SO2 emission?: A structural analysis based on the Divisia decomposition method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 868-886, February.
    8. Jung‐Ah Hwang & Yeonbae Kim, 2017. "Effects of Environmental Regulations on Trade Flow in Manufacturing Sectors: Comparison of Static and Dynamic Effects of Environmental Regulations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 688-706, July.
    9. Wajdi Bardi & Mohamed Ali Hfaiedh, 2021. "Causal Interaction between FDI, Corruption and Environmental Quality in the MENA Region," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, February.
    10. Alassane Drabo, 2011. "Agricultural primary commodity export and environmental degradation: what consequences for population's health?," CERDI Working papers halshs-00586034, HAL.
    11. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    12. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Abbas, Faisal & Anis, Omri, 2015. "Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 275-287.
    13. Maryam Asghari, 2017. "National Security and Economic Growth," Iranian Economic Review (IER), Faculty of Economics,University of Tehran.Tehran,Iran, vol. 21(4), pages 905-924, Autumn.
    14. Dhimitri Qirjo & Razvan Pascalau, 2019. "The Role of TTIP on the Environment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1262-1285, April.
    15. Oikonomou, Vlasis & Patel, Martin & Worrell, Ernst, 2006. "Climate policy: Bucket or drainer?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3656-3668, December.
    16. Arouri, Mohamed El Hedi & Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Rault, Christophe & Sova, Robert & Sova, Anamaria, 2012. "Environmental Regulation and Competitiveness: Evidence from Romania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 130-139.
    17. Andreas Waldkirch & Munisamy Gopinath, 2008. "Pollution Control and Foreign Direct Investment in Mexico: An Industry-Level Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 289-313, November.
    18. Ilker Akar, 2019. "The Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Foreign Trade - A Survey on the Relation with Environment," Economics Literature, WERI-World Economic Research Institute, vol. 1(1), pages 37-50, June.
    19. Cave, Lisa A. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 2008. "Environmental policy in the European Union: Fostering the development of pollution havens?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 253-261, April.
    20. Busse, Matthias, 2004. "Trade, environmental regulations and the World Trade Organization : new empirical evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3361, The World Bank.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331234. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.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.