IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehs/wpaper/16009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does liberalisation promote international trade? An empirical analysis of the Kennedy Round GATT negotiations, 1964-67

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Coppolaro

    (University of Padova)

  • Giulio Cainelli

    (University of Padova)

Abstract

"As reported in the literature, studies on the effectiveness of GATT/WTO in enhancing the growth of world trade have produced remarkably different results. Rose (2004a and 2004b), whose work paved the way for an empirical analysis of the impact of GATT/WTO, reported no positive effects. Subsequently, other scholars (Tomz, Goldstein, Rivers 2007a and 2007b; Subramanian and Wei, 2007; Eicher and Henn, 2011, among others) tried to confirm or overturn Rose’s result by refining the analysis on econometric or economic grounds but produced ambiguous results. The work described herein contributes to this debate by providing an empirical analysis of the effects of the GATT Kennedy Round (1964-1967) on world trade. Our research question was whether the 1968-1972 multilateral tariff reductions implemented as a result of the Round enhanced trade growth. To address this question, we refined the method with which the effectiveness of GATT/WTO could be measured by accounting for asymmetries across countries and products in the GATT-liberalizing path. We first considered the different levels of GATT-activity participation of its members, and, secondly, after disaggregating imports by products, we measured the effects of tariff reduction on these products for the twenty-nine countries that attended the Round. This preliminary version of our paper focused on asymmetries across countries, and our findings indicated that the Kennedy Round had a positive effect on the imports of those countries that reduced tariffs significantly. We further demonstrated GATT’s negative or insignificant effect on average GATT members and showed that non-GATT members traded less than members. Our preliminary results are consistent with the history and design of GATT and are exactly in line with the path of liberalization."

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Coppolaro & Giulio Cainelli, 2016. "Does liberalisation promote international trade? An empirical analysis of the Kennedy Round GATT negotiations, 1964-67," Working Papers 16009, Economic History Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehs:wpaper:16009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/c81f09b3-f9b4-4799-8606-9ccc2bf6b146.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anonymous, 1964. "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 665-669, July.
    2. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    3. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, March.
    4. Eicher, Theo S. & Henn, Christian, 2011. "In search of WTO trade effects: Preferential trade agreements promote trade strongly, but unevenly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 137-153, March.
    5. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    6. J.M. Finger, 2002. "Effects of the Kennedy Round Tariff Concessions on the Exports of Developing Countries," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 2, pages 13-21, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    2. Juyoung Cheong & Do Won Kwak & Kam Ki Tang, 2014. "The WTO puzzle, multilateral resistance terms and multicollinearity," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(13), pages 928-933, September.
    3. Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero, 2020. "Does the GATT/WTO promote trade? After all, Rose was right," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(2), pages 377-405, May.
    4. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H. & Feng, Michael, 2014. "Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 339-350.
    5. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2014. "WTO Membership and the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: European Economic Integration, WTO Membership, Immigration and Offshoring, chapter 5, pages 149-192, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2010. "Modelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO Membership," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1430-1469, November.
    7. Anca D. Cristea & Anna Miromanova, 2022. "Firm‐level trade effects of WTO accession: Evidence from Russia," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 237-281, February.
    8. Dutt, Pushan, 2020. "The WTO is not passé," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    9. Moelders, Florian, 2011. "Trade Persistence and the Limits of Trade Agreements," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2011 58, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    10. Díaz-Mora, Carmen & Esteve-Pérez, Silviano & Gil-Pareja, Salvador, 2023. "A re-assessment of the heterogeneous effect of trade agreements using intra-national trade flows," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 940-951.
    11. Jason H. Grant & Kathryn A. Boys, 2012. "Agricultural Trade and the GATT/WTO: Does Membership Make a Difference?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 1-24.
    12. SATO Hitoshi, 2014. "Does MFN Free Riding Plague the Information Technology Agreement?," Discussion papers 14003, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    13. Lourenço S. Paz & Magnus Reis & André Filipe Zago Azevedo, 2024. "New Evidence on WTO Membership After the Uruguay Round: An Analysis at the Sectoral Level," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-39, February.
    14. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    15. Yoto V. Yotov, 2022. "On the role of domestic trade flows for estimating the gravity model of trade," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(3), pages 526-540, July.
    16. Juyoung Cheong & Do Won Kwak & Kam Ki Tang, 2013. "WTO Trade Effects and Identification Problems: Why Knowing The Structural Properties of WTO Memberships Matters?," Discussion Papers Series 491, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    17. Pedro E. Moncarz, 2010. "Determinantes del comercio de servicios financieros Potencial de exportaciones para los países sudamericanos," Documentos de trabajo 2010019, Banco Central del Uruguay.
    18. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    19. Dutt, Pushan & Mihov, Ilian & Van Zandt, Timothy, 2013. "The effect of WTO on the extensive and the intensive margins of trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 204-219.
    20. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N00 - Economic History - - General - - - General

    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:ehs:wpaper:16009. 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: Chair Public Engagement Committe (currently David Higgins - Newcastle) (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ehsukea.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.