IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v30y2007i6p999-1028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Production‐weighted Estimates of Aggregate Protection in Rich Countries Towards Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • David Roodman

Abstract

A challenge in the development of aggregate indexes of trade protection is weighting individual tariffs in ways that (a) reflect their importance and (b) are not endogenous to the protection being measured. The most obvious basis for weights is actual imports; but these may be highly endogenous. Various authors have worked to correct this endogeneity. For example, in the Bouët et al. (2004) ‘MAcMap’ data set, weights are based on imports of reference groups of countries. But eliminating the endogeneity is difficult in product areas where protection is high and widespread. I develop a new set of estimates of overall protection in rich countries with respect to developing ones that eschews import weights as much as possible in favour of weights based on the value of exporter's total production. The results are generally higher than those of Bouët et al. Product areas in which protection is high and widespread seem systematically de‐emphasised when using MAcMap weights, especially in agriculture. I also estimate tariff equivalents of trade‐distorting subsidies by country and commodity. Agricultural tariffs dominate subsidies in trade‐distorting effect, and agricultural protection in turn dominates goods protection generally. Japan is most protective, largely because of rice tariffs near 900 per cent, followed by Norway and Switzerland. Because of their greater reliance on agriculture, the poorest countries face the highest barriers, despite tariff preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • David Roodman, 2007. "Production‐weighted Estimates of Aggregate Protection in Rich Countries Towards Developing Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 999-1028, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:30:y:2007:i:6:p:999-1028
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01027.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01027.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01027.x?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. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. William R. Cline, 2004. "Trade Policy and Global Poverty," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 379, April.
    3. Anderson, James E & Neary, J Peter, 1994. "Measuring the Restrictiveness of Trade Policy," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 8(2), pages 151-169, May.
    4. William Cline, 2002. "An Index of Industrial Country Trade Policy Toward Developing Countries," Working Papers 14, Center for Global Development.
    5. Hiau Looi Kee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2008. "Import Demand Elasticities and Trade Distortions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(4), pages 666-682, November.
    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. Thomas L. Vollrath & Mark J. Gehlhar & Charles B. Hallahan, 2009. "Bilateral Import Protection, Free Trade Agreements, and Other Factors Influencing Trade Flows in Agriculture and Clothing," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 298-317, June.

    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. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    2. John Christopher Beghin & Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2017. "Trade restrictiveness indices in the presence of externalities: An application to non-tariff measures," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 5, pages 81-104, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Chen, Bo & Ma, Hong & Xu, Yuan, 2014. "Measuring China’s trade liberalization: A generalized measure of trade restrictiveness index," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 994-1006.
    4. Zhaohui Niu & Chang Liu & Saileshsingh Gunessee & Chris Milner, 2018. "Non-tariff and overall protection: evidence across countries and over time," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(4), pages 675-703, November.
    5. Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Background Paper on the IMF's Trade Restrictiveness Index," MPRA Paper 21316, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Lawrence Edwards & Robert Lawrence, 2008. "SACU Tariff Policies: Where Should They Go From Here?," CID Working Papers 169, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    7. Peter Lloyd & Donald MacLaren, 2010. "Partial‐ and General‐Equilibrium Measures of Trade Restrictiveness," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 1044-1057, November.
    8. David Laborde & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2017. "Measuring the Impacts of Global Trade Reform with Optimal Aggregators of Distortions," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 403-425, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Fugazza, Marco & Nicita, Alessandro, 2013. "The direct and relative effects of preferential market access," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 357-368.
    11. Zhaohui Niu & Chang Liu & Saileshsingh Gunessee & Chris Milner, 2017. "Non-Tariff and Overall Protection: Evidence from Across Countries and Over Time," Discussion Papers 2017-08, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    12. World Bank, 2012. "Kazakhstan : Assessment of Costs and Benefits of the Customs," World Bank Publications - Reports 12299, The World Bank Group.
    13. Ederington,Josh & Ruta,Michele, 2016. "Non-tariff measures and the world trading system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7661, The World Bank.
    14. Gawande, Kishore & Hoekman, Bernard & Cui, Yue, 2011. "Determinants of trade policy responses to the 2008 financial crisis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5862, The World Bank.
    15. Cletus C. Coughlin, 2010. "Measuring international trade policy: a primer on trade restrictiveness indices," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 92(Sep), pages 381-394.
    16. World Bank, 2012. "Assessment of Costs and Benefits of the Customs Union for Kazakhstan," World Bank Publications - Reports 2722, The World Bank Group.
    17. Hoekman, Bernard & Nicita, Alessandro, 2011. "Trade Policy, Trade Costs, and Developing Country Trade," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 2069-2079.
    18. Bouët, Antoine & Elbehri, Aziz & Nguyen, Duc Bao & Traoré, Fousseini, 2022. "Measuring Agricultural Trade Integration in Southeast Asia," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 37(2), pages 235-266.
    19. Chad P. Bown & Patricia Tovar, 2016. "Preferential Liberalization, Antidumping, and Safeguards: Stumbling Block Evidence from MERCOSUR," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 262-294, November.
    20. Eyal RONEN, 2017. "Quantifying the trade effects of NTMs: A review of the empirical literature," Journal of Economics and Political Economy, KSP Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 263-274, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • O19 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies

    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:bla:worlde:v:30:y:2007:i:6:p:999-1028. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    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.