IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/6599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Trade Blocs Building or Stumbling Blocks? New Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Baldwin, Richard
  • Seghezza, Elena

Abstract

The stumbling-block argument asserts that regionalism hinders MFN tariff cutting. If this was of first-order importance over previous decades, we should see a negative relationship between the level of MFN and preferential tariffs, i.e. MFN and PTA tariffs should be substitutes. Using tariff line data for 23 large trading nations (over one million observations) we find exactly the opposite. MFN and PTA tariffs are complements, not substitutes since margins of preferences tend to be low or zero for products where nations apply high MFN tariffs. One interpretation is that regionalism is neither a building nor a stumbling block. Sectoral vested interests are a ?third factor? that generates the positive correlation between MFN and PTA tariff levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Baldwin, Richard & Seghezza, Elena, 2007. "Are Trade Blocs Building or Stumbling Blocks? New Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 6599, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:6599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP6599
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fugazza, Marco & Nicita, Alessandro, 2011. "Measuring preferential market access," MPRA Paper 38565, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Estevadeordal, Antoni & Volpe Martincus, Christian & Ando, Mitsuyo, 2009. "Complements or Substitutes?: Preferential and Multilateral Trade Liberalization at the Sectoral Level," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2550, Inter-American Development Bank.
    3. Marco Fugazza & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2014. "The “Emulator Effect” of the Uruguay Round on US Regionalism," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 1049-1078, November.
    4. Marco Fugazza & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2012. "The ‘Emulator Effect’ Of The Uruguay Round On United States Regionalism," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 51, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    5. Antoni Estevadeordal & Christian Volpe Martincus & Mitsuyo Ando, 2009. "Complements or Substitutes?: Preferential and Multilateral Trade Liberalization at the Sectoral Level," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9332, Inter-American Development Bank.
    6. Simo Regis Y., 2013. "Integrating African Markets into the Global Exchange of Services: A Central African Perspective," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 255-297, September.
    7. Fugazza, Marco & Nicita, Alessandro, 2013. "The direct and relative effects of preferential market access," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 357-368.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Building blocks; Political economy of tariffs; Regionalism; Stumbling blocks;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:6599. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.