IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/imfstp/v54y2007i2p338-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Amiti
  • John Romalis

Abstract

This paper assesses the effects of reducing tariffs under the Doha Round on market access for developing countries. It shows that for many developing countries actual preferential access is less generous than it appears because of low product coverage or complex rules of origin. Thus, lowering tariffs under the multilateral system is likely to lead to a net increase in market access for many developing countries, with gains in market access offsetting losses from preference erosion. Furthermore, comparing various tariff-cutting proposals, the research shows that the largest gains in market access are generated by higher tariff cuts in agriculture. IMF Staff Papers (2007) 54, 338–384. doi:10.1057/palgrave.imfsp.9450009

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:imfstp:v:54:y:2007:i:2:p:338-384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/imfsp/journal/v54/n2/pdf/9450009a.pdf
    File Function: Link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/imfsp/journal/v54/n2/full/9450009a.html
    File Function: Link to full text HTML
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Francois & Will Martin, 2003. "Formula Approaches for Market Access Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 1-28, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    4. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center.
    5. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    6. John Romalis, 2007. "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 416-435, August.
    7. Kimberly A. Clausing, 2001. "Trade creation and trade diversion in the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 677-696, August.
    8. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    9. Carolyn Evans & James Harrigan, 2005. "Tight Clothing. How the MFA Affects Asian Apparel Exports," NBER Chapters, in: International Trade in East Asia, pages 367-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Yongzheng Yang, 2005. "Africa in the Doha Round; Dealing with Preference Erosion and Beyond," IMF Policy Discussion Papers 2005/008, International Monetary Fund.
    11. Brenton, Paul & Ikezuki, Takako, 2004. "The initial and potential impact of preferential access to the U.S. market under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3262, The World Bank.
    12. James Devault, 1996. "Competitive Need Limits And The U.S. Generalized System Of Preference," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(4), pages 58-66, October.
    13. Huiwen Lai & Daniel Trefler, 2002. "The Gains from Trade with Monopolistic Competition: Specification, Estimation, and Mis-Specification," NBER Working Papers 9169, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Hans P Lankes & Katerina Alexandraki, 2004. "The Impact of Preference Erosionon Middle-Income Developing Countries," IMF Working Papers 2004/169, International Monetary Fund.
    15. Dean, Judith M. & Wainio, John, 2006. "Quantifying the value of U.S. tariff preferences for developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3977, 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. 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. Persson, Maria, 2012. "From trade preferences to trade facilitation: Taking stock of the issues," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 6, pages 1-33.
    3. Valentina Raimondi & Margherita Scoppola & Alessandro Olper, 2012. "The Impact of European Union Preferential Policies in the Rice Industry: A Dynamic Panel Gravity Approach," FOODSECURE Working papers 4, LEI Wageningen UR.
    4. John Romalis, 2007. "Market Access, Openness and Growth," NBER Working Papers 13048, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Richard Pomfret & Uwe Kaufmann & Christopher Findlay, 2010. "Are Preferential Tariffs Utilized? Evidence from Australian Imports, 2000-9," School of Economics Working Papers 2010-13, University of Adelaide, School of Economics.
    6. Hamanaka, Shintaro, 2013. "A note on detecting biases in assessing the use of FTAs," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 24-32.
    7. Pedro J. Martinez Edo, 2011. "Reciprocal liberalization: Bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral?," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: United Nations ESCAP (ed.), Trade beyond Doha: Prospects for Asia-Pacific Least Developed Countries, Studies in Trade and Investment 76, chapter 4, pages 60-94, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    8. Valentina Raimondi & Margherita Scoppola & Alessandro Olper, 2012. "Preference erosion and the developing countries exports to the EU: a dynamic panel gravity approach," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 148(4), pages 707-732, December.
    9. Persson, Maria, 2013. "Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective," Working Papers 2013:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Lili Yan Ing & Shujiro Urata & Yoshifumi Fukunaga, . "How Do Exports and Imports Affect the Use of Free Trade Agreements? Firm-level Survey Evidence from Southeast Asia," Chapters,, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    11. Simeon Djankov & Caroline Freund & Cong S. Pham, 2010. "Trading on Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 166-173, February.
    12. Olga Pindyuk & Leon Podkaminer & Sandor Richter, 2008. "Monthly Report No. 1/2008," wiiw Monthly Reports 2008-01, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 9437, 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. Garth Frazer & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Trade Growth under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 128-144, February.
    2. Ingo Borchert, 2009. "Trade diversion under selective preferential market access," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 1390-1410, November.
    3. 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).
    4. Daniel Trefler, 2004. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 870-895, September.
    5. Cooke, Edgar F. A., 2012. "Is the impact of AGOA heterogeneous?," MPRA Paper 43277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Francesco Di Comite & Antonella Nocco & Gianluca Orefice, 2014. "Tariff reductions, trade patterns and the wage gap in a monopolistic competition model with vertical linkages," Working Papers 2014-02, CEPII research center.
    7. Walkenhorst, Peter & Cattaneo, Olivier, 2006. "Trade, Diversification and Growth in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 23735, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Antoine Bouët & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Is Erosion of Tariff Preferences a Serious Concern?," Working Papers 2005-14, CEPII research center.
    9. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    10. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    11. John Romalis, 2007. "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 416-435, August.
    12. Lopresti, John, 2016. "Multiproduct firms and product scope adjustment in trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 160-173.
    13. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    14. Cooke, Edgar F A, 2011. "The impact of trade preferences on exports of developing countries: the case of the AGOA and CBI preferences of the USA," MPRA Paper 31439, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Koopmann, Georg & Hoekstra, Ruth, 2010. "Aid for trade and the political economy of trade liberalization," HWWI Research Papers 2-22, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    16. Emiliano Magrini & Pierluigi Montalbano & Silvia Nenci, 2013. "Are the EU trade preferences really effective? A Generalized Propensity Score evaluation of the Southern Mediterranean Countries' case in agriculture and fishery," Working Papers 2/13, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.
    17. Lawrence Edwards & Robert Z. Lawrence, 2014. "AGOA Rules: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Special Fabric Provisions," NBER Chapters, in: African Successes, Volume III: Modernization and Development, pages 343-393, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Christopher S. P. Magee, 2016. "Trade creation, trade diversion, and the general equilibrium effects of regional trade agreements: a study of the European Community–Turkey customs union," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 152(2), pages 383-399, May.
    19. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2010. "The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 87-106.
    20. Gabriel Felbermayr & Mario Larch & Mario Larch, 2014. "Transatlantic Free Trade: Questions and Answers from the Vantage Point of Trade Theory," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 14(04), pages 03-17, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    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:pal:imfstp:v:54:y:2007:i:2:p:338-384. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.