IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wtowps/ersd200505.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multilateral solutions to the erosion of non-reciprocal preferences in NAMA

Author

Listed:
  • Low, Patrick
  • Piermartini, Roberta
  • Richtering, Jurgen

Abstract

This paper analyzes the risks of preference erosion arising from MFN trade liberalization in manufactured products. It focuses on developing countries that receive non-reciprocal preferences in the markets of United States, EU, Japan, Canada and Australia. The paper estimates preference margins as the difference between non-reciprocal preferential rates received by individual countries and the best available (MFN or better-than-MFN) treatment received on average by all other suppliers. Most previous work on this subject has compared the preferential rates for individual countries with MFN rates alone, which the paper found to have the effect of over-stating the margin at risk from erosion following MFN reductions. The paper also considers the effect of less than full utilization of preference margins by beneficiaries, but a lack of data prevented the inclusion of this additional moderating factor relating to erosion risk.The paper finds that developing countries as a whole do not loose from preference erosion following MFN liberalization, although significant gains and losses underlie the estimate of the average. Almost all least-developed countries either lose from preference erosion or are unaffected by it because their exports are already largely MFN duty-free. A large number of LDCs are in the latter group. The main sectors where preference erosion occurs are textiles, fish and fish products, leather and leather products, electrical machinery and wood and wood products. As regards trade solutions to preference erosion, options are somewhat limited. Improved utilization rates may help certain countries but certainly do not offer a generalized solution. Limited scope exists for expanding the coverage of preference schemes within the destination markets considered in the paper. Other destination markets might offer some prospect, but these are limited by the fact that the markets studied dominate the trade flows of the beneficiary countries.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wtowps:ersd200505
    DOI: 10.30875/4ead70b5-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/72064/2/503599042.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30875/4ead70b5-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José Anson & Olivier Cadot & Antoni Estevadeordal & Jaime de Melo & Akiko Suwa‐Eisenmann & Bolormaa Tumurchudur, 2005. "Rules of Origin in North–South Preferential Trading Arrangements with an Application to NAFTA," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 501-517, August.
    2. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    3. 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..
    4. Anne O. Krueger, 1993. "Free Trade Agreements as Protectionist Devices: Rules of Origin," NBER Working Papers 4352, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. André Sapir & Lars Lundberg, 1984. "The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences and Its Impacts," NBER Chapters, in: The Structure and Evolution of Recent US Trade Policy, pages 195-236, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. 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.
    7. Brown, Drusilla K, 1989. "Trade and Welfare Effects of the European Schemes of the Generalized System of Preferences," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(4), pages 757-777, July.
    8. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Cadot, Olivier & Estevadeordal, Antoni & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko, 2004. "Rules of Origin as Export Subsidies," Conference papers 331264, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. 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..
    11. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    12. Brenton, Paul, 2003. "Integrating the least developed countries into the world trading system : the current impact of EU preferences under everything but arms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3018, The World Bank.
    13. 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.
    14. Grossman, Gene M. & Sykes, Alan O., 2005. "A preference for development: the law and economics of GSP," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 41-67, March.
    15. André Sapir & Rolf Langhammer, 1987. "Economic impact of generalized tariff preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8090, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    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. Erika Vianna Grossrieder, 2006. "Preference Erosion: The case of Bangladesh - A SUR-EC-AR Gravity Model of Trade," IHEID Working Papers 18-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised Aug 2007.
    2. Sharma, Anupa & Grant, Jason & Boys, Kathryn, 2015. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205890, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin, 2007. "Estimating censored and non homothetic demand systems : the generalized maximum entropy appoach," Post-Print hal-02814735, HAL.
    4. Paul Collier & Anthony J. Venables, 2007. "Rethinking Trade Preferences: How Africa Can Diversify its Exports," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 1326-1345, August.
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/45eb019724sn6sg9melpggksl is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Raihan, Selim & Razzaque, Mohammad A, 2007. "WTO and regional trade negotiation outcomes: quantitative assessments of potential implications on Bangladesh," MPRA Paper 38475, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    8. 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.
    9. Escaith, Hubert & Tamenu, Bekele, 2013. "Least-Developed Countries' Trade During the "Super-Cycle" and the Great Trade Collapse: Patterns and Stylized Facts," MPRA Paper 51997, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade and agricultural policies in Malawi: Not all policy reform is equally good for the poor," Conference papers 332277, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Douillet, Mathilde, 2011. "Which trade integration scheme can best help Sub-Saharan Africa develop and export more processed agricultural goods?:," IFPRI discussion papers 1119, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Mathilde Douillet, 2012. "Trade policies and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa Comparative analysis in a Computable General Equilibrium framework [Politiques commerciales et agriculture en Afrique Sub-Saharienne : analyse c," SciencePo Working papers Main tel-03676037, HAL.
    13. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2006. "Non-reciprocal preference erosion arising from MFN liberalitzation in agriculture: What are the risks?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2006-02, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    14. Mathilde Douillet, 2012. "Trade policies and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Comparative analysis in a Computable General Equilibrium framework," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/45eb019724s, Sciences Po.
    15. 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.
    16. Rafael E. De Hoyos & Maurizio Bussolo & Oscar Nú�ez, 2012. "Exports, Gender Wage Gaps, and Poverty in Honduras," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 533-551, December.
    17. Frederik Stender, 2018. "MERCOSUR in gravity: an accounting approach to analyzing its trade effects," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 501-522, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade and agricultural policies in Malawi: Not all policy reform is equally good for the poor," MPRA Paper 40948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/45eb019724sn6sg9melpggksl is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Mustafizur Rahman & Wasel Bin Shadat, 2006. "NAMA Negotiations in the WTO and Preference Erosion," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 7(2), pages 179-203, September.
    22. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade policy reforms in the new agricultural context: Is regional integration a priority for Sub-Saharan African countries agricultural-led industrialization? Insights from a global computable general," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126546, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    23. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Priyadarshi, Shishir, 2016. "Has the multilateral Hong Kong Ministerial decision on duty free quota free market access provided a breakthrough in the Least developed countries' export performance?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2016-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    24. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/45eb019724sn6sg9melpggksl is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Bernard Hoekman, 2007. "Doha, Development And Discrimination," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 267-292, August.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Iyer, Harish, 2021. "Effect of Aid for Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on the Utilization of Unilateral Trade Preferences offered by the QUAD countries," EconStor Preprints 238211, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. de Melo, Jaime & Cadot, Olivier & Carrère, Céline & Portugal-Perez, Alberto, 2005. "How Much Market Access in FTAs? Textiles Under NAFTA," CEPR Discussion Papers 5264, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. 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.
    6. Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Utilisation and Tariff Reduction in EU Imports from ACP Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(9), pages 1243-1266, September.
    7. Stephan Klasen & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann & Matthias Bruckner, 2021. "Does the designation of least developed country status promote exports?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 157-177, February.
    8. Denis Medvedev, 2010. "Preferential trade agreements and their role in world trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(2), pages 199-222, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Manchin, Miriam, 2005. "Preference utilization and tariff reduction in European Union imports from African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3688, The World Bank.
    11. 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.
    12. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    13. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Sèna Kimm Gnangnon, 2023. "Do unilateral trade preferences help reduce poverty in beneficiary countries?," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 249-288, February.
    17. Pamela Bombarda & Elisa Gamberoni, 2013. "Firm Heterogeneity, Rules Of Origin, And Rules Of Cumulation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 307-328, February.
    18. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    19. 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).
    20. Mariarosaria Agostino & Federica Demaria & Francesco Trivieri, 2010. "Non‐Reciprocal Trade Preferences and the Role of Compliance Costs in the Agricultural Sector: Exports to the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 652-679, September.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:wtowps:ersd200505. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtoerch.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.