IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgd/wpaper/14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Index of Industrial Country Trade Policy Toward Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • William Cline

    ()

Abstract

The index of trade policy developed in this study is designed to synthesize the state of developing country access to import markets in each of the major industrial country areas. The first section presents the theoretical considerations involved in constructing the index, and weighs the pros and cons of various approaches to measuring protection. The second section presents estimates of protection against imports from developing countries for Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States. These estimates are calculated for three broad product categories: textiles and apparel; other manufactures; and agricultural goods. The analysis then combines the sectoral estimates into an Aggregate Measure of Protection (AMP) for each importing country. It also reports measures of revealed openness, and incorporates them along with the AMPs to obtain a composite ranking of industrial countries by degree of market access. The study then considers the additional information gained by disaggregating protection among EU member countries (in light of variation in agricultural subsidies), reviews two other recent studies similarly ranking protection and compares them to the present study, and recapitulates the principal findings. Among the big three markets, this study finds that protection against developing countries is lowest (and market access highest) in the United States, intermediate in the EU, and highest (market access lowest) in Japan. Among seven industrial countries plus the EU, market access is ranked highest for a cluster of three countries close to each other at relatively low protection levels (United States, Australia, New Zealand); followed by Canada and the EU, and then by Switzerland with somewhat lesser access. Significantly lesser market access is found in Japan and especially lowest-ranked Norway. For most countries, the results are driven heavily by estimates of agricultural protection, which is so high that it dominates the results even though the share of agriculture in total imports is modest. It is thus not surprising that the countries concentrated at the top of the market access league tend to be the agricultural exporting countries, and those at the bottom, agricultural importers.

Suggested Citation

  • William Cline, 2002. "An Index of Industrial Country Trade Policy Toward Developing Countries," Working Papers 14, Center for Global Development.
  • Handle: RePEc:cgd:wpaper:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/2777
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné & Mondher Mimouni, 2008. "The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 336-350.
    2. Alberto Portugal-Perez, 2008. "THE COSTS OF RULES OF ORIGIN IN APPAREL: African preferential exports to the United States and the European Union," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 39, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    3. Elena Ianchovichina & Aaditya Mattoo & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2001. "Unrestricted Market Access for Sub‐Saharan Africa: How Much Is It Worth and Who Pays?," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), vol. 10(4), pages 410-432.
    4. Bougheas, Spiros & Demetriades, Panicos O. & Morgenroth, Edgar L. W., 1999. "Infrastructure, transport costs and trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-189, February.
    5. Houssein Guimbard & David Laborde Debucquet & Cristina Mitaritonna, 2009. "A Picture of Tariff Protection Across the World in 2004 MAcMap-HS6, Version 2," Working Papers 2009-22, CEPII research center.
    6. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné & Mondher Mimouni, 2007. "The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from SPS and TBT Agreements," Working Papers 2007-04, CEPII research center.
    7. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 1994. "Measuring the Costs of Protection in the United States," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 77.
    8. Disdier, Anne-Celia & Fontagne, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2008. "AJAE Appendix: The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics Appendices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), May.
    9. Vanzetti, David & Peters, Ralf, 2009. "Duty-free and quota-free market access for LDCs," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47646, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Kimberly Ann Elliott, 2009. "Opening Markets for Poor Countries: Are We There Yet?," Working Papers 184, Center for Global Development.
    11. Lionel Fontagné & David Laborde & Cristina Mitaritonna, 2008. "An Impact Study of the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the Six ACP Regions," Working Papers 2008-04, CEPII research center.
    12. Berisha-Krasniqi, Valdete & Bouet, Antoine & Laborde, David & Mevel, Simon, 2008. "The development promise: Can the doha development agenda deliver for least developed countries?," Research briefs 14, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. 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.
    2. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, pages 577-616.
    3. Tom Achterbosch & Hakim Ben Hammouda & Patrick Osakwe & Frank van Tongeren, 2004. "Trade liberalisation under the Doha Development Agenda Options and consequences for Africa," International Trade 0407013, EconWPA.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Industrial Country; Trade Policy; Developing Countries; import markets; Aggregate Measure of Protection;

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • F43 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Economic Growth of Open Economies
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:cgd:wpaper:14. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cgdevus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.