IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wtowps/ersd200703.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade remedy provisions in regional trade agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Teh, Robert
  • Prusa, Thomas J.
  • Budetta, Michele

Abstract

This paper maps and examines the provisions on anti-dumping, countervailing duties and safeguards in seventy-four regional trade agreements (RTAs). The RTAs vary in size, degree of integration, geographic region and the level of economic development of their members. The key policy concern of the paper is that the elastic and selective nature of trade remedies may lead to more discrimination, with reduced trade remedy actions against RTA partners, but a greater frequency of trade remedy actions against non-members. The adoption of RTAspecific trade remedy rules increases this risk of discrimination, with trade remedies against RTA members being abolished outright or being subjected to greater discipline. The templates used for mapping the trade remedy provisions reflect this central concern. The results of the mappings suggest the need to be vigilant about increased discrimination arising from trade remedy rules in RTAs. A number of RTAs have succeeded in abolishing trade remedies. Probit and multinomial logit model estimations suggest that these RTAs are characterized by a higher share of intra-RTA trade and deeper forms of integration that go well beyond the dismantling of border measures. A fairly large number of RTAs have adopted RTA-specific rules that tighten discipline on the application of trade remedies on RTA members. In the case of anti-dumping for example, some provisions increase de minimis volume and dumping margin requirements and shorten the duration for applying anti-dumping duties relative to the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. In similar fashion, many of the provisions on bilateral safeguards lead to tightened discipline or reduce the incentives to take safeguard actions. Safeguard measures can be imposed only during the transition period, have shorter duration periods and require compensation if put in place. Further, retaliation is allowed if there is no agreement on compensation. RTA provisions on global safeguards require that, under certain conditions, RTA partners be exempted from multilateral safeguard actions. This conflicts with multilateral rules which require that safeguard measures be applied to all sources of imports and highlights the problem of trade diversion. A small number of RTAs give a role to regional institutions to conduct anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations and to review final determinations of national authorities. There is a theoretical presumption and some empirical evidence to suggest that this reduces the frequency of anti-dumping initiations and final determinations against RTA members. In the case of CVDs, we are unable to find major innovations in CVD rules and practice by past and present RTAs. A major reason for this may be the absence of commitments in the RTA on meaningful or significant curbs on subsidies or state aid.

Suggested Citation

  • Teh, Robert & Prusa, Thomas J. & Budetta, Michele, 2007. "Trade remedy provisions in regional trade agreements," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2007-03, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wtowps:ersd200703
    DOI: 10.30875/79daa09a-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/72063/1/546168132.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30875/79daa09a-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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad Bown, 2013. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 449-481, June.
    2. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2009. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 469-495, May.
    3. Ian Wooton & Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-trust," Working Papers 2002_6, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Oct 2002.
    4. K. Jones, 2000. "Does NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) Chapter 19 make a difference? Dispute settlement and the incentive structure of U.S./Canada unfair trade petitions," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(2), pages 145-158, April.
    5. Arvind Panagariya & Jagdish Bhagwati, 1996. "The Economics of Preferential Trade Agreements," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51856, September.
    6. Alan M. Rugman & Andrew D.M. Anderson, 1997. "NAFTA and the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: A Transaction Costs Approach," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 935-950, November.
    7. J. Michael Finger & Julio J. Nogués, 2006. "Safeguards and Antidumping in Latin American Trade Liberalization : Fighting Fire with Fire," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7407, December.
    8. Goldstein, Judith, 1996. "International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair†trade laws," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 541-564, 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. Andrew G. Brown & Robert M. Stern, 2011. "Free Trade Agreements and Governance of the Global Trading System," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 331-354, March.
    2. Oscar Fernando & Lili Yan Ing, 2022. "Indonesia’s Local Content Requirements: An Assessment on Consistency with Free Trade Agreement Commitments," Working Papers DP-2021-53, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).

    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. Thomas J. Prusa & Robert Teh, 2010. "Protection Reduction and Diversion: PTAs and the Incidence of Antidumping Disputes," NBER Working Papers 16276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Jiandong Ju & Kala Krishna, 2005. "Firm behaviour and market access in a Free Trade Area with rules of origin," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 290-308, February.
    4. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Liebman, Benjamin H. & Pierce, Justin R. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2013. "Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 369-378.
    5. Chad P. Bown, 2010. "China's WTO Entry: Antidumping, Safeguards, and Dispute Settlement," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 281-337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Patrick Messerlin, 2007. "How Much Further Can the WTO Go? Developed Countries Issues," Working Papers hal-00973103, HAL.
    7. Rupa Duttagupta & Arvind Panagariya, 2007. "Free Trade Areas And Rules Of Origin: Economics And Politics," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 169-190, July.
    8. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    9. Grether, Jean-Marie & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 1998. "Preferential and non-preferential trade flows in world trade," WTO Staff Working Papers ERAD-98-10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    10. Lucian Cernat, 2001. "ASSESSING REGIONAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS: ARE SOUTH–SOUTH RTAs MORE TRADE DIVERTING?," International Trade 0109001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Panagariya, A., 1997. "Preferential trading and the myth of natural trading partners," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 471-489, December.
    12. Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 2008. "International Economic Policy: Was There a Bush Doctrine?," NBER Working Papers 13831, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Cadot, Olivier & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Can bilateralism ease the pains of multilateral trade liberalization?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-44, January.
    15. Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade liberalisation and regional integration: the search for large numbers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1-20.
    16. Xiao-guang Zhang & George Verikios, 2006. "Providing Duty-Free Access to Australian Markets for Least-Developed COuntries: a General Equilibrium Analysis," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 06-09, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    17. Raymond Riezman, 1999. "Can Bilateral Trade Agreements Help Induce Free Trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 751-766, May.
    18. George Manzano & Myrene Bedano, 2011. "Revisiting Sectoral Liberalization: An Alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific? Implications for the Philippines," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 18(1), pages 73-124, June.
    19. Srinivasan, T.N., 2001. "India's Reform of External Sector Policies and Future Multilateral Trade Negotiations," Center Discussion Papers 28428, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    20. Valenzuela, Ernesto & Hertel, Thomas W., 2006. "Trade Reforms and Poverty: Are the Impacts Discernable?," Conference papers 331527, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regional trade agreement; anti-dumping; countervailing duties; safeguards;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations

    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:ersd200703. 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.