IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/009007/9185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Lifting of Economic Sanctions on Iran: Global Effects and Strategic Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Ianchovichina
  • Shantayanan Devarajan
  • Csilla Lakatos

Abstract

This paper quantifies the global economic effects and strategic responses to the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran. The proposed lifting of sanctions, following its July 14, 2015 nuclear agreement with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (“P5+1”), will have consequences for the global, regional, and Iranian economies. The global effects will be felt mostly through the oil channel. The resumption of Iranian oil exports to pre-2012 levels could eventually add one million barrels per day on the world oil market, bidding down world prices. There will also be regional effects on Iran’s major trading partners, including the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, through an expansion of oil and non-oil trade, as sanctions-induced trading costs come down. Finally, there will be effects on Iran’s economy as barriers to trade are relaxed, the production mix shifts in favor of goods that fetch high prices abroad and its consumption towards cheaper imports, with attendant effects on economic growth, efficiency and household welfare. This paper quantifies the economic effects of the lifting of sanctions on Iran using a modified version of the GTAP 9 database (Narayanan et al., 2015) and a global, computable general-equilibrium (CGE) model, GTAP, documented in Hertel (1997). CGE models capture the interaction between producers and consumers in the economy, mediated through the price mechanism. The global CGE model also captures the trade flows between countries and solves for a set of world prices that equilibrate global supply and demand. We use the model to simulate the effect of a “shock”, such as the removal of a trade embargo, on the market-clearing prices at the global and national levels. We are therefore able to isolate the consequences of the lifting of sanctions from other ongoing developments in the economy. Since the model captures the new equilibrium of an economy that has been perturbed, the time horizon of a simulation is best thought of as medium term, i.e. three to five years. In our simulations, the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran has three components. The first is the lifting of the EU oil embargo. The 2012 restrictions on imports of Iranian oil by the EU were the most far-reaching of the sanctions as they curtailed the volume of exports of Iran’s most important export commodity. Thus, the removal of the EU oil embargo is expected to have the largest macroeconomic impact on Iran and the rest of the world as oil accounts for about 64 percent of Iranian export revenue and Iran has a relatively large share (8 percent) of total world exports. The second component is the removal or significant reduction of the cargo inspections on Iranian exports and imports that were imposed as part of the sanctions regime. Transport costs on trade with Iran are expected to decline. This in turn will have an effect on Iran’s merchandise trade and boost in particular exports and imports of bulky goods and other goods with large transport margins, such as agricultural and industrial products and machinery. The third component is associated with improvements in non-tariff barriers affecting Iran’s cross-border imports of financial and transport services. As the US and other partners lift restrictions on financial transactions and transport services, Iran’s imports of these services are expected to rise. Simulations with the model show that gains from the embargo removal are the largest for Iran, resulting in a welfare gain of about $18 billion to the economy, or an increase in per capita welfare of 3.7 percent. Almost half of these gains (1.7 percent or approximately $8.2 billion) stem from the lifting of the EU oil embargo, while the reduction in trade costs and improvements in conditions for cross-border services trade result in additional gains of $2.0 billion and $7.5 billion, respectively. The gains to Iran will be 22 percent lower if Iran’s oil exports to the EU do not recover completely but reach only half of their pre-sanction levels. This may be a more likely outcome since a full bounce back may not be possible in the medium term due to various impediments to oil production and exports, including a range of technical constraints on crude oil extraction and high domestic oil demand, to name a few. In the global economy, net oil importers gain and net oil exporters lose as the world price of oil declines by about 13 percent due to the additional amount of oil sold on the global market. The gains to the EU and the US, both net oil importers, are sizable in absolute terms $67 billion and $34 billion but small in relative terms as per capita welfare increases by slightly less than a half of a percent in the EU and a quarter of a percent in the US. The losses are steepest for OPEC members, especially the GCC, which are expected to lose 3.9 percent in per capita welfare (equivalent to $55 billion in 2011 prices). Per capita welfare for other OPEC members and Russia declines by 2.9 percent ($19 billion) and 1.6 percent ($30 billion), respectively. The rest of the world is not significantly affected by the reduction in Iran’s trade costs because Iran is responsible for a negligible share of the world’s non-oil exports. Overall, the removal of Iran’s economic sanction translates into a gain for the world economy of $53 billion. Iran gains the most in per capita terms, while the losses of oil exporting countries are large and of similar absolute magnitude to Iran’s gains. The paper also considers the strategic responses of different trading blocks to the lifting of the sanctions. Major oil exporters may limit their own oil output and exports in order to stabilize world oil prices. We assess the effect of such a strategic move in combination with the lifting of Iran’s sanctions. Recognizing that Iran’s policy responses will have a substantial effect on the country’s ability to benefit from the lifting of sanctions, we consider the effects of two policy reforms: (i) unilateral reduction of tariffs on imported capital goods and (ii) reforms intended to boost automobile production. Finally, we assess the effects of improved market access for Iranian exports in western markets in response to credible signs of successful implementation of the nuclear agreement. We find that if major OPEC members limit the quantity of oil produced and exported in order to leave the world price of oil unchanged, the global welfare gains from the removal of the EU oil embargo would be significantly reduced. Compared to the baseline scenario, world-wide welfare gains decrease by 70 percent, from $54 billion to $16 billion. Iran’s welfare gains are enhanced and the losses to oil exporting countries reduced, but not by enough to compensate for the oil importers’ reduced welfare gains. The benefits to Iran will also increase if the lifting of the embargo is accompanied with national economic reforms that strengthen the supply response. With a reduction of tariffs on imports of capital goods, welfare gains are expected to be $1.8 billion larger for Iran than in the baseline scenario. Policies that encourage the expansion of automobile production to pre-sanction levels would translate into even higher gains. Given the importance of this industry to the Iranian economy, these reforms translate into a 40 percent boost to welfare or $7 billion. Exports of automobiles are found to increase by more than two-fold benefiting all factors of production but most significantly the returns to capital and skilled labor. Finally, improved market access to the west benefits not only Iran, but also the market-access-granting countries. The supply response will be stronger and the welfare effects larger if investment in general, and foreign direct investment in particular, picks up.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Ianchovichina & Shantayanan Devarajan & Csilla Lakatos, 2016. "The Lifting of Economic Sanctions on Iran: Global Effects and Strategic Responses," EcoMod2016 9185, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:009007:9185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Ianchovichina%20WP%207549.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 2008. "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered 3rd edition (hardcover + CD)," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 4082.
    2. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    3. M. Reza Gharibnavaz & Robert Waschik, 2015. "A Computable General Equilibrium Model of International Sanctions," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-255, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    4. Elena Ianchovichina & Maros Ivanic, 2016. "Economic Effects of the Syrian War and the Spread of the Islamic State on the Levant," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 1584-1627, October.
    5. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 2009. "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd Edition (paper)," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 4129, October.
    6. Terrie L. Walmsley & Thomas W. Hertel & Elena Ianchovichina, 2006. "Assessing The Impact Of China'S Wto Accession On Investment," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 315-339, October.
    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. Elisabeth Christen & Sandra Bilek-Steindl & Christian Glocker & Harald Oberhofer, 2017. "Österreich 2025 – Österreichs Wettbewerbsposition und Exportpotentiale auf ausgewählten Zukunftsmärkten," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 90(1), pages 83-95, January.
    2. Farahnak, Fardin, 2022. "Comparative analysis of oil-driven economic policies for Saudi Arabia and Iran; using the CGE model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Ali Dadpay & Saleh S. Tabrizy, 2021. "Political Agreements and Exporting Activities: An Empirical Assessment of the Effects of the JCPOA Agreement on Iran’s Exports," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 63(1), pages 147-180, March.
    4. Ghahroudi Mehdi Rasouli & Chong Li Choy, 2020. "The Macroeconomic Determinants and the Impact of Sanctions on FDI in Iran," Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 15-34, February.

    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. Elena Ianchovichina & Maros Ivanic, 2016. "Economic Effects of the Syrian War and the Spread of the Islamic State on the Levant," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 1584-1627, October.
    2. Elena Ianchovichina & Terrie Walmsley, 2005. "Impact of China's WTO Accession on East Asia," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 261-277, April.
    3. Elena Ianchovichina & Will Martin, 2004. "Impacts of China's Accession to the World Trade Organization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(1), pages 3-27.
    4. Eromenko, Igor, 2010. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine. Part II," MPRA Paper 67452, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Yinhua Mai & Philip Adams & Mingtai Fan & Ronglin Li & Zhaoyang Zheng, 2005. "Modelling the Potential Benefits of an Australia-China free Trade Agreement," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-153, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    6. Matthew Moore, 2010. "Arming the Embargoed: A Supply-Side Understanding of Arms Embargo Violations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 593-615, August.
    7. Eromenko, Igor, 2011. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine," MPRA Paper 67535, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Lee, Hiro & Roland-Holst, David & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2002. "Emergent trilateralism in the Pacific Basin: How should China, Japan, and the United States respond to regional trade initiatives?," MPRA Paper 82606, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Rogov Mikhail I., 2016. "International Economic Sanctions:Analyses Of The Case With Russia In 2014," Annals of marketing-mba, Department of Marketing, Marketing MBA (RSconsult), vol. 2, August.
    10. Sajjad Faraji Dizaji & Peter A G van Bergeijk, 2013. "Potential early phase success and ultimate failure of economic sanctions," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 50(6), pages 721-736, November.
    11. Elena IANCHOVICHINA & Will MARTIN, 2006. "Trade Impacts of China's World Trade Organization Accession," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 1(1), pages 45-65, June.
    12. Simon J.Evenett & Mia Mikic & Ravi Ratnayake (ed.), 2011. "Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia," ARTNeT Books and Research Reports, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number brr10.
    13. Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Trade policy analysis in the presence of duty drawbacks," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-371, April.
    14. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    15. Jiang, Tingsong, 2003. "The Impact of China's WTO Accession on its Regional Economies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    16. Michael Horowitz & Dan Reiter, 2001. "When Does Aerial Bombing Work?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(2), pages 147-173, April.
    17. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    18. Adams, Philip D., 2008. "Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Change: How Much Will an Emissions Trading Scheme Cost Australia?," Conference papers 331770, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    20. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Iran; EU; US; Russia; Israel; GCC OPEC; Other MENA; Other OPEC; Rest of World; Impact and scenario analysis; Trade and regional integration;
    All these keywords.

    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:ekd:009007:9185. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.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.