Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Single Market non-compliance: how relevant is the institutional setting?

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of the national institutional setting of EU member states in explaining Single Market non-compliance regarding non-tariff barriers in intra-EU trade. This study uses data on infringements to Single Market law on the free movement of goods. After controlling for country and industry-specific factors, we show that domestic institutional characteristics are relevant to explain non-compliance ensuing from trade protection measures implemented by EU countries. While government independence from political pressures and higher levels of representativeness and accountability reduce the propensity of member states to infringe upon Single Market laws on the free movement of goods, better regulatory quality increases the probability of non-compliance at industry level, suggesting that increases in competition generate protectionist measures that violate Single Market law.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe/docs/2013/NIPE_WP_06_2013.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by NIPE - Universidade do Minho in its series NIPE Working Papers with number 06/2013.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nip:nipewp:06/2013

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Núcleo de Investigação em Políticas Económicas, Escola de Economia e Gestão, Universidade do Minho, P-4710-057 Braga, Portugal
Phone: +351-253604510 ext 5532
Fax: +351-253601380
Email:
Web page: http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe/versao_inglesa/index_uk.htm
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

Related research

Keywords: Single Market; institutional setting; non-compliance; trade protection; non-tariff barriers; count data models.;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio LopezdeSilanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2000. "The Regulation of Entry," NBER Working Papers 7892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Is protection really for sale? A survey and directions for future research," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 181-191, March.
  3. Grossman, Gene & Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Protection for Sale," CEPR Discussion Papers 827, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  4. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
  5. Steinberg, Richard H., 2002. "In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(02), pages 339-374, March.
  6. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
  7. Luc Laeven & Christopher Woodruff, 2007. "The Quality of the Legal System, Firm Ownership, and Firm Size," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 601-614, November.
  8. Chen, Natalie, 2002. "Intra-national versus International Trade in the European Union: Why do National Borders Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. Krishna B. Kumar & Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1999. "What Determines Firm Size?," NBER Working Papers 7208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Karacaovali, Baybars & Limão, Nuno, 2005. "The Clash of Liberalizations: Preferential vs. Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the European Union," CEPR Discussion Papers 4973, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  11. Marianna Belloc & Paolo Guerrieri, 2008. "Special Interest Groups and Trade Policy in the EU," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 457-478, September.
  12. Mansfield, Edward D. & Busch, Marc L., 1995. "The political economy of nontariff barriers: a cross-national analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(04), pages 723-749, September.
  13. Heather A. D. Mbaye, 2001. "Why National States Comply with Supranational Law," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 259-281, October.
  14. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-60, February.
  15. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(03), pages 571-605, July.
  16. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(02), pages 203-223, March.
  17. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Gravity, trade integration, and heterogeneity across industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 206-221.
  18. Vincent Aussilloux & Charlotte Emlinger & Lionel Fontagné, 2011. "What Benefits from Completing the Single Market," La Lettre du CEPII, CEPII research center, issue 316.
  19. Bettina Becker & Martin Theuringer, 2000. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," IWP Discussion Paper Series 02/2000, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany.
  20. Susanna Thede, 2005. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade Protection," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 313-328, 03.
  21. Davis, Steven J & Henrekson, Magnus, 1999. " Explaining National Differences in the Size and Industry Distribution of Employment," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 59-83, February.
  22. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nip:nipewp:06/2013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Maria João Thompson).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.