IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3721.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade

Author

Listed:
  • Hoekman. Bernard
  • Prowse, Susan

Abstract

Trade preferences are a central issue in ongoing efforts to negotiate further multilateral trade liberalization."Less preferred"countries are increasingly concerned about the discrimination they confront, while"more preferred"developing countries worry that WTO-based liberalization of trade will erode the value of current preferential access regimes. This tension suggests there is a political economy case for preference-granting countries to explicitly address erosion fears. The authors argue that the appropriate instrument for this is development assistance. The alternative of addressing erosion concerns through the trading system will generate additional discrimination and trade distortions, rather than moving the WTO toward a more liberal, non-discriminatory regime. They further argue that prospective losses generated by most-favored-nation liberalization should be quantified on a bilateral basis, using methods that estimate what the associated transfer should have been and ignoring the various factors that reduce their value in practice (such as compliance costs or the fact that part of the rents created by preference programs accrue to importers in OECD countries). Given that many poor countries have not been able to benefit much from preference programs, a case is also made that preference erosion should be considered as part of a broader response by OECD countries to calls to make the trading system more supportive of economic development. The focus should be on identifying actions and policy measures that will improve the ability of developing countries to use trade for development.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:3721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/09/19/000016406_20050919093149/Rendered/PDF/wps3721.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baldwin, R E & Murray, Tracy, 1977. "MFN Tariff Reductions and Developing Country Trade Benefits under the GSP," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 30-46, March.
    2. M. Ataman Aksoy & John C. Beghin, 2005. "Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7464, December.
    3. Limão, Nuno, 2005. "Preferential Trade Agreements as Stumbling Blocks for Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence for the US," CEPR Discussion Papers 4884, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Paul Brenton & Miriam Manchin, 2014. "Making EU Trade Agreements Work: The Role of Rules of Origin," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Empirical Studies of Trade Policies, chapter 14, pages 299-313, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Jean Imbs & Romain Wacziarg, 2003. "Stages of Diversification," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 63-86, March.
    6. Rodrik, Dani, 2004. "Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century," CEPR Discussion Papers 4767, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2018. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 15, pages 403-426, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Fabien Candau & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "What Are EU Trade Preferences Worth for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Countries?," Working Papers 2005-19, CEPII research center.
    9. Douglas C. Lippoldt, 2006. "The Australian Preferential Tariff Regime," OECD Trade Policy Papers 33, OECD Publishing.
    10. Rodriguez-Clare, Andres, 2007. "Clusters and comparative advantage: Implications for industrial policy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 43-57, January.
    11. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    12. Céline Carrère & Jaime de Melo, 2015. "Are Different Rules of Origin Equally Costly? Estimates from NAFTA," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Developing Countries in the World Economy, chapter 12, pages 277-298, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Bernard Hoekman, 2005. "Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in the WTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment*," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 405-424, June.
    14. Joseph Francois & Ian Wooton, 2004. "Market Structure in Services and Market Access in Goods," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-050/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Marcelo Olarreaga & Çaglar Özden, 2005. "AGOA and Apparel: Who Captures the Tariff Rent in the Presence of Preferential Market Access?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 63-77, January.
    16. André Sapir & Sam Laird, 1987. "Tariff preference," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8248, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Antoine Bouët & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2004. "A Consistent, Ad-Valorem Equivalent Measure of Applied Protection Across the World: The MAcMap-HS6 Database," Working Papers 2004-22, CEPII research center.
    18. André Sapir & Rolf Langhammer, 1987. "Economic impact of generalized tariff preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8090, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Hoekman, Bernard, 2004. "Dismantling Discrimination Against Developing Countries: Access, Rules and Differential Treatment," CEPR Discussion Papers 4694, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2005. "Trade preferences and differential treatment of developing countries : a selective survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3566, The World Bank.
    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. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Doha Merchandise Trade Reform: What Is at Stake for Developing Countries?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 169-195.
    2. Bob Milward, 2015. "On the Historical, Moral and Economic Arguments for Asymmetric Trading Regimes: the case of sub-Saharan Africa," World Economic Review, World Economics Association, vol. 2015(5), pages 1-87, July.
    3. Rafael Romeu, 2014. "The Vacation Is Over: Implications for the Caribbean of Opening U.S.-Cuba Tourism," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    5. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    6. Alan Matthews & Hannah Chaplin & Thomas Giblin & Marian Mraz, 2007. "Strengthening Policy Coherence for Development in Agricultural Policy: Policy Recommendations to Irish Aid," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp188, IIIS.
    7. Fugazza, Marco, 2007. "A new geography of preferences for Sub-Saharan African countries in a globalizing trading system," MPRA Paper 11575, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Rueda-Junquera, Fernando & Gozalo-Delgado, Mariola, 2012. "Los resultados de la Iniciativa de la Ayuda para el Comercio en América Latina: Una primera valoración/The Results of the Initiative of Aid for Trade in Latin America: A First Assessment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 30, pages 861-888, Diciembre.
    9. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    10. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," Working Paper Series rwp06-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," Working Paper Series rwp06-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Calì, Massimiliano & te Velde, Dirk Willem, 2011. "Does Aid for Trade Really Improve Trade Performance?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 725-740, May.
    13. Bob Fisher, 2006. "Preference Erosion, Government Revenues and Non‐tariff Trade Barriers," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1377-1393, October.
    14. Simone Bertoli & Giovanni Andrea Cornia & Francesco Manaresi, 2007. "Aid performance and its determinants. A comparison of Italy with the OECD norm," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 60(242), pages 271-321.
    15. William Hynes & Patrick Holden, 2012. "What future for the Global Aid for Trade Initiative? Towards a fairer assessment of its achievements and limitations," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp421, IIIS.
    16. Dowlah Caf, 2008. "The Generalized System of Preferences of the United States: Does It Promote Industrialization and Economic Growth in Least Developed Countries?," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 74-97, December.
    17. Finger, J. Michael & Wilson, John S., 2006. "Implementing a WTO agreement on trade facilitation : what makes sense ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3971, The World Bank.

    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. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9437, December.
    3. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Chakir, Raja & Gallezot, Jacques, 2006. "The Utilisation of EU and US Trade Preferences for Developing Countries in the Agri-Food Sector," Working Papers 18867, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    4. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2005. "Multilateral solutions to the erosion of non-reciprocal preferences in NAMA," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2005-05, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    5. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    6. Bouët, Antoine, 2006. "What can the poor expect from trade liberalization?: opening the "black box" of trade modeling," MTID discussion papers 93, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. DeMaria, Federica & Drogue, Sophie & Matthews, Alan, 2008. "Agro-Food Preferences in the EU's GSP Scheme: An Analysis of Changes between 2004 and 2006," Working Papers 6151, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    8. Persson, Maria, 2012. "From trade preferences to trade facilitation: Taking stock of the issues," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-33.
    9. Olivier CADOT & Lili Yan ING, 2014. "How Restrictive Are ASEAN's RoO?," Working Papers DP-2014-18, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    10. Moeller, Thordis & Grethe, Harald, 2010. "Climate Change and European Agriculture in 2050: Outlook for Cereal and Oilseed Markets," Conference papers 331938, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Arne Melchior, 2006. "The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1329-1346, October.
    12. Olivier Cadot & Lili Yan Ing, 2016. "How Restrictive Are ASEAN's Rules of Origin?," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 115-134, Fall.
    13. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. HAYAKAWA Kazunobu & JINJI Naoto & MATSUURA Toshiyuki & YOSHIMI Taiyo, 2019. "Costs of Utilizing Regional Trade Agreements," Discussion papers 19054, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    15. Hayakawa, Kazunobu & Nuttawut, Laksanapanyakul & Shiino, Kohei, 2013. "Some practical guidance for the computation of free trade agreement utilization rates," IDE Discussion Papers 438, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    16. Scott McDonald & Terrie Walmsley, 2008. "Bilateral Free Trade Agreements and Customs Unions: The Impact of the EU Republic of South Africa Free Trade Agreement on Botswana," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(8), pages 993-1029, August.
    17. Fabien Candau & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "What Are EU Trade Preferences Worth for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Countries?," Working Papers 2005-19, CEPII research center.
    18. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    19. Manchin, Miriam & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette O., 2008. "Clothes without an Emperor: Analysis of the preferential tariffs in ASEAN," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-223, June.
    20. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Doha Merchandise Trade Reform: What Is at Stake for Developing Countries?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 169-195.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:3721. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.