Measuring the Welfare Effects of Country of Origin Rules: A Suggested Methodology
The United States and the European Union have generated dozens of bilateral Regional Trading Agreements (RTA) across the globe. All of these trading arrangements have detailed agreements on rules of origin (ROOs). Those rules are required in order to ensure that the perceived benefits of the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) are not subverted or deflected. These rules have their greatest impact on a firm's cost structure when applied to the trade of intermediate goods. Determination of the origin of final goods becomes more complicated where imported intermediates are used and the WTO 'substantial transformation' rules are implemented.There is relatively little literature on the impact of these rules of origin on trade. (Cadot et al., 2006; Duttagupta and Panagariya, 2002; and Falvey and Reed, 1998, 2002). The existing literature hypothesizes that these rules can easily be used to restrict or suppress trade between countries, or to divert trade away from more efficient suppliers to less efficient ones. The empirical evidence to support the trade distortions is based on the number and complexity of the rules of origin. In order to determine the degree to which the post-RTA trade flows are indeed affected by ROO requires a micro-based review of increased transaction costs, rather than the number of rules.The intent of this paper is to suggest a formal methodology, which relies on the literature about tariff-equivalents, to evaluate rules of origin requirements. The suggested approach, applied at the 5-digit HS level will provide a more robust evaluation of ROOs. The suggested methodology could also be used to investigate the oft-asserted hypothesis that with time and reduced tariff barriers, the costs associated with ROOs will diminish.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 10 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/gej|
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.:
- Hartley, Michael J, 1976. "The Estimation of Markets in Disequilibrium: The Fixed Supply Case," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(3), pages 687-699, October.
- Rod Falvey & Geoff Reed,, "undated".
"Economic Effects of Rules of Origin,"
97/21, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
- Rod Falvey & Geoff Reed, 1998. "Economic effects of rules of origin," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(2), pages 209-229, June.
- Maddala, G S & Nelson, Forrest D, 1974. "Maximum Likelihood Methods for Models of Markets in Disequilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(6), pages 1013-1030, November.
- Kala Krishna, 2005. "Understanding Rules of Origin," NBER Working Papers 11150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kala Krishna & Anne Krueger, 1995. "Implementing Free Trade Areas: Rules of Origin and Hidden Protection," NBER Working Papers 4983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Anne O. Krueger, 1993. "Free Trade Agreements as Protectionist Devices: Rules of Origin," NBER Working Papers 4352, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Anne O. Krueger, 1999. "Are Preferential Trading Arrangements Trade-Liberalizing or Protectionist?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 105-124, Fall.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:10:y:2010:i:1:n:2. 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: (Peter Golla)
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.