An Index of Industrial Country Trade Policy Toward Developing Countries
AbstractThe index of trade policy developed in this study is designed to synthesize the state of developing country access to import markets in each of the major industrial country areas. The first section presents the theoretical considerations involved in constructing the index, and weighs the pros and cons of various approaches to measuring protection. The second section presents estimates of protection against imports from developing countries for Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States. These estimates are calculated for three broad product categories: textiles and apparel; other manufactures; and agricultural goods. The analysis then combines the sectoral estimates into an Aggregate Measure of Protection (AMP) for each importing country. It also reports measures of revealed openness, and incorporates them along with the AMPs to obtain a composite ranking of industrial countries by degree of market access. The study then considers the additional information gained by disaggregating protection among EU member countries (in light of variation in agricultural subsidies), reviews two other recent studies similarly ranking protection and compares them to the present study, and recapitulates the principal findings. Among the big three markets, this study finds that protection against developing countries is lowest (and market access highest) in the United States, intermediate in the EU, and highest (market access lowest) in Japan. Among seven industrial countries plus the EU, market access is ranked highest for a cluster of three countries close to each other at relatively low protection levels (United States, Australia, New Zealand); followed by Canada and the EU, and then by Switzerland with somewhat lesser access. Significantly lesser market access is found in Japan and especially lowest-ranked Norway. For most countries, the results are driven heavily by estimates of agricultural protection, which is so high that it dominates the results even though the share of agriculture in total imports is modest. It is thus not surprising that the countries concentrated at the top of the market access league tend to be the agricultural exporting countries, and those at the bottom, agricultural importers.
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 InfoPaper provided by Center for Global Development in its series Working Papers with number 14.
Length: 35 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.cgdev.org
Industrial Country; Trade Policy; Developing Countries; import markets; Aggregate Measure of Protection;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
- F43 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Economic Growth of Open Economies
- F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- David Roodman, 2007.
"Production-weighted Estimates of Aggregate Protection in Rich Countries Towards Developing Countries,"
The World Economy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 999-1028, 06.
- David Roodman, 2005. "Production-weighted Estimates of Aggregate Protection in Rich Countries toward Developing Countries," Working Papers 66, Center for Global Development.
- Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008.
"Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?,"
Journal of Economic Surveys,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, 07.
- Achterbosch, Thom J. & ben Hammouda, H. & Osakwe, Patrick N. & van Tongeren, Frank W., 2004.
"Trade Liberalisation Under The Doha Development Agenda; Options And Consequences For Africa,"
29104, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
- Tom Achterbosch & Hakim Ben Hammouda & Patrick Osakwe & Frank van Tongeren, 2004. "Trade liberalisation under the Doha Development Agenda Options and consequences for Africa," International Trade 0407013, EconWPA.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Roodman).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.