IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333439.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How well have free trade agreements performed in reducing non-tariff barriers?

Author

Listed:
  • Rusova, Tereza
  • Prendiville, Siobhan
  • Jones, Samuel

Abstract

This paper analyses the effect of past FTAs on non-tariff measures (NTMs) as well as the impact of individual FTAs (EU-Korea, US-Korea) on NTMs across individual GTAP65 sectors. NTM reductions are a key input for CGE modelling and they tend to drive the majority of CGE results. This is because tariff rates across the world are already relatively low, and FTAs therefore mostly target non-tariff measures. Despite their central role in CGE modelling, NTM reductions are notoriously difficult to estimate, especially on a disaggregated level (such as GTAP65) and per individual agreement. In many cases, modellers are left to assume blanket NTM reductions across aggregated sectors, which does not allow for heterogeneous impact of FTAs at a sectoral level. This paper follows the approach set out by Baier et al (2019) and contributes to the existing literature on NTMs in two ways. Using a new tariff dataset developed by the UK Department for International Trade, we estimate the gravity model on a sectoral level and secondly, we break down the traditional group of “trade costs” into tariff and NTMs by controlling for the impact of tariffs. We present the changes in NTMs by their corresponding GTAP65 sector. Our model shows that an ‘average FTA’ reduced NTMs in under a half of modelled sectors, mostly agriculture and manufacturing. Conversely, many service sectors have seen an NTM increase under the ‘average’ FTA scenario. We also find that trade in services has been more impacted by the ability of technology to enable remotely delivery, compared to goods sectors. The results connected to individual FTAs tend to be of higher magnitude and we find that fewer results are significant. This is likely due to lower number of observations connected to individual agreements. Despite this, the results of both individual FTAs we examine (EU-Korea and US-Korea) are mostly in line with what the FTAs were expected to deliver in sectors that were the focus of the agreements.

Suggested Citation

  • Rusova, Tereza & Prendiville, Siobhan & Jones, Samuel, 2022. "How well have free trade agreements performed in reducing non-tariff barriers?," Conference papers 333439, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333439/files/11270.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. María Pía Olivero & Yoto V. Yotov, 2012. "Dynamic gravity: endogenous country size and asset accumulation," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 64-92, February.
    2. Baier, Scott L. & Yotov, Yoto V. & Zylkin, Thomas, 2019. "On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: Lessons from twenty years of trade integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 206-226.
    3. Ingo Borchert & Mario Larch & Serge Shikher & Yoto V. Yotov, 2021. "The International Trade and Production Database for Estimation (ITPD-E)," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 166, pages 140-166.
    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. Ingo Borchert & Mario Larch & Serge Shikher & Yoto V. Yotov, 2022. "Disaggregated gravity: Benchmark estimates and stylized facts from a new database," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 113-136, February.
    2. Ridley, William & Luckstead, Jeff & Devadoss, Stephen, 2022. "Wine: The punching bag in trade retaliation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero & Jordi Paniagua, 2021. "Has the Euro paid off? A study of the trade-induced welfare effects of the EMU," Working Papers 2103, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    4. Campos, Rodolfo G. & Timini, Jacopo & Vidal, Elena, 2021. "Structural gravity and trade agreements: Does the measurement of domestic trade matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    5. Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2020. "Short run gravity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero, 2020. "Does the GATT/WTO promote trade? After all, Rose was right," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(2), pages 377-405, May.
    7. Quintieri, Beniamino & Stamato, Giovanni, 2023. "Are preferential agreements beneficial to EU trade? New evidence from the EU-South Korea treaty," Working Paper Series 2822, European Central Bank.
    8. Gnutzmann, Hinnerk & Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, Arevik, 2020. "The Cost of Borders: Evidence from the Eurasian Customs Union," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-664, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    9. Adu, Raymond & Litsios, Ioannis & Baimbridge, Mark, 2022. "ECOWAS single currency: Prospective effects on trade," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Peter H. Egger & Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yotov, 2020. "Gravity-Model Estimation with Time-Interval Data: Revisiting the Impact of Free Trade Agreements," CESifo Working Paper Series 8553, CESifo.
    11. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Yotov, Yoto V., 2021. "From theory to policy with gravitas: A solution to the mystery of the excess trade balances," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    12. Milena Kern & Jörg Paetzold & Hannes Winner, 2021. "Cutting red tape for trade in services," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 2858-2886, October.
    13. Suárez-Varela, Marta & Rodríguez-Crespo, Ernesto, 2022. "Is dirty trade concentrating in more polluting countries? Evidence from Africa," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 728-744.
    14. Larch,Mario,Tan,Shawn Weiming,Yotov,Yoto Valentinov, 2021. "A Simple Method to Quantify the ex-ante Effects of “Deep” Trade Liberalization and “Hard” Trade Protection," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9791, The World Bank.
    15. Erick Kitenge & Sajal Lahiri, 2022. "Is the Internet bringing down language‐based barriers to international trade?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 566-605, May.
    16. Jung, Benjamin, 2020. "The heterogeneous effects of China's accession to the world trade organization," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 10-2020, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    17. Hayakawa, Kazunobu & Jongwanich, Juthathip & Kohpaiboon, Archanun, 2022. "The trade effect of non-tariff measures in a high-quality trade agreement," IDE Discussion Papers 871, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    18. Anna Golovko & Hasan Sahin, 2021. "Analysis of international trade integration of Eurasian countries: gravity model approach," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(3), pages 519-548, September.
    19. Díaz-Mora, Carmen & Esteve-Pérez, Silviano & Gil-Pareja, Salvador, 2023. "A re-assessment of the heterogeneous effect of trade agreements using intra-national trade flows," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 940-951.
    20. Steven Brakman & Harry Garretsen & Tristan Kohl, 2023. "EXITitis in the UK: Gravity Estimates in the Aftermath of Brexit," De Economist, Springer, vol. 171(2), pages 185-206, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; International Relations/Trade;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:pugtwp:333439. 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.