IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331626.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Textile and Apparel Barriers and Rules of Origin in a Post-ATC World

Author

Listed:
  • Fox, Alan
  • Powers, William
  • Winston, Ashley

Abstract

Although textile and apparel imports from most countries entered the United States quota free after the expiration of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing on January 1, 2005, substantial quantitative restraints remained for Chinese and Vietnamese imports. These countries were respectively the first and eighth largest exporters of textiles and apparel to the United States, so these quantitative restraints remain important barriers to U.S. imports. This paper uses the USAGE– ITC model to estimate U.S. welfare gains and sectoral impacts of removing the remaining restraints on textiles and apparel imports. This analysis includes a new and detailed examination of textile and apparel preferential rules of origin. The shocks applied in the simulation include large declines in foreign demand for U.S. textile inputs in sectors in which U.S. exports are currently driven by rules of origin, and export price reductions that would accompany the elimination of rule-of-origin compliance costs in these sectors. Liberalization of textile and apparel barriers and rules of origin is estimated to increase U.S. welfare by $3.4 billion (net) while decreasing U.S. textile and apparel output by $11.0 billion. Eliminating only quantitative restraints provides over half of the welfare gain but causes less than 2 percent of the output loss, with a large decline only in the sock sector. Tariff elimination provides about one quarter of the welfare gain at a cost of 13.3 percent of the output loss, while elimination of rules of origin accounts for the remaining 23.3 percent of increased welfare and 84.9 percent of the overall output reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Fox, Alan & Powers, William & Winston, Ashley, 2007. "Textile and Apparel Barriers and Rules of Origin in a Post-ATC World," Conference papers 331626, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331626/files/3266.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorothée Boccanfuso & Luc Savard, 2005. "Impact Analysis of the Liberalization of Groundnut Production in Senegal: A Multi-household Computable General Equilibrium Model," Cahiers de recherche 05-12, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    2. Annabi, Nabil & Khondker, Bazlul & Raihan, Selim & Cockburn, John & Decaluwe, Bernard, 2006. "Implications of WTO agreements and unilateral trade policy reforms for poverty in Bangladesh : short versus long-run impacts," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3976, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. KM Shivakumar & S.Kombairaju & M.Chandrasekaran, 2007. "Trade Policy Analysis of Edible Oil Imports of India under CGE framework," EcoMod2007 23900083, EcoMod.
    2. Sayeed, Yeasmin, 2014. "Trade-offs in Achieving Human Development Goals for Bangladesh," Working Papers 2014:6, Örebro University, School of Business.
    3. Anderson, Edward, 2020. "The impact of trade liberalisation on poverty and inequality: Evidence from CGE models," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1208-1227.
    4. John Gilbert, 2008. "Trade Policy, Poverty, and Income Distribution in CGE Models: An Application to SAFTA," Working Papers 2008-02, Utah State University, Department of Economics, revised 19 Dec 2008.
    5. N.M. Nkang & B.T. Omonona & S.A. Yusuf & O.A. Oni, 2013. "Simulating the Impact of Exogenous Food Price Shock on Agriculture and the Poor in Nigeria: Results from a Computable General Equilibrium Model," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 79-94, March.
    6. Acharya, Sanjaya & Cohen, Solomon, 2008. "Trade liberalisation and household welfare in Nepal," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1057-1060.
    7. John Gilbert, 2008. "Agricultural Trade Reform and Poverty in the Asia-Pacific: A Survey and Some New Results," MPDD Working Paper Series WP/08/01, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    8. Ali, Ershad & Talukder, Dayal, 2010. "Agricultural Trade Liberalisation and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: Analysis of Distributional Consequences," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Milton Ayoki, 2013. "Trade Policies and Poverty in Uganda: A Computable General Equilibrium Micro Simulation Analysis," Working Papers 258, African Economic Research Consortium, Research Department.
    10. Obi-Egbedi, Ogheneruemu & Okoruwa, Victor O. & Yusuf, Sulaiman A. & Adenegan, Kemisola O. & Alarudeen, Aminu, 2013. "Rice Trade Protectionism Versus Liberalization in Nigeria: A CGE Analysis of Economic and Welfare Effects," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161528, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    11. John Gilbert & Nilanjan Banik, 2012. "Socio-economic impacts of regional transport infrastructure in South Asia," Chapters, in: Biswa Nath Bhattacharyay & Masahiro Kawai & Rajat M. Nag (ed.), Infrastructure for Asian Connectivity, chapter 5, pages 139-163, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. John Gilbert & Nilanjan Banik, 2010. "Socioeconomic Impacts of Cross- Border Transport Infrastructure Development in South Asia," Development Economics Working Papers 21803, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    13. Nugroho, Anda & Widyastutik, & Irawan, Tony & Amaliah, Syarifah, 2021. "Does the US–China trade war increase poverty in a developing country? A dynamic general equilibrium analysis for Indonesia," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 279-290.
    14. Kenneth Reinert, 2007. "The European Union, the Doha Round, and Asia," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 317-330, September.
    15. Ole Boysen & Alan Matthews, 2008. "The Impact of Developed Country Agricultural Trade Liberalization on Poverty: A Survey," Working Papers hal-03416399, HAL.
    16. Shanta Paudel Khatiwada & Wei Deng & Bikash Paudel & Janak Raj Khatiwada & Jifei Zhang & Yi Su, 2017. "Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, April.
    17. Ayoki, Milton, 2013. "Pursuing a pro-poor trade liberalization agenda: Regionalism, multilateralism and poverty in Uganda," MPRA Paper 83547, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Acharya, Sanjaya & Hölscher, Jens & Perugini, Cristiano, 2012. "Trade liberalisation and inequalities in Nepal: A CGE analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 2543-2557.
    19. Orlov, Anton & Grethe, Harald & McDonald, Scott, 2010. "An Economy-wide Analysis of an Increase in Energy Prices in Russia: Relevance of the Nesting Structure for Output Effects," Conference papers 331947, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Ayoki, Milton, 2013. "Computable General Equilibrium Micro Simulation Analysis of the Impact of Trade Policies on Poverty in Uganda," MPRA Paper 78876, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331626. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.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.