IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id289.html

Multilateral Solutions to the Erosion of Non-Reciprocal Preferences in NAMA

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Low

Abstract

This paper analyzes the risks of preference erosion arising from MFN trade liberalization in manufactured products. It focuses on developing countries that receive non-reciprocal preferences in the markets of United States, EU, Japan, Canada and Australia. The paper estimates preference margins as the difference between non-reciprocal preferential rates received by individual countries and the best available (MFN or better-than-MFN) treatment received on average by all other suppliers. Most previous work on this subject has compared the preferential rates for individual countries with MFN rates alone, which the paper found to have the effect of over-stating the margin at risk from erosion following MFN reductions.The paper finds that developing countries as a whole do not loose from preference erosion following MFN liberalization, although significant gains and losses underlie the estimate of the average. Almost all least-developed countries either lose from preference erosion or are unaffected by it because their exports are already largely MFN duty-free.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Low, 2005. "Multilateral Solutions to the Erosion of Non-Reciprocal Preferences in NAMA," Working Papers id:289, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document119122005210.8898584.doc
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Fugazza, Marco, 2007. "A new geography of preferences for Sub-Saharan African countries in a globalizing trading system," MPRA Paper 11575, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Douillet, Mathilde, 2011. "Which trade integration scheme can best help Sub-Saharan Africa develop and export more processed agricultural goods?:," IFPRI discussion papers 1119, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/45eb019724sn6sg9melpggksl is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade and agricultural policies in Malawi: Not all policy reform is equally good for the poor," Conference papers 332277, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/45eb019724sn6sg9melpggksl is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mustafizur Rahman & Wasel Bin Shadat, 2006. "NAMA Negotiations in the WTO and Preference Erosion," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 7(2), pages 179-203, September.
    8. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade policy reforms in the new agricultural context: Is regional integration a priority for Sub-Saharan African countries agricultural-led industrialization? Insights from a global computable general," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126546, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Priyadarshi, Shishir, 2016. "Has the multilateral Hong Kong Ministerial decision on duty free quota free market access provided a breakthrough in the Least developed countries' export performance?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2016-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    10. Sharma, Anupa & Grant, Jason & Boys, Kathryn, 2015. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205890, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin, 2007. "Estimating censored and non homothetic demand systems : the generalized maximum entropy appoach," Post-Print hal-02814735, HAL.
    12. Raihan, Selim & Razzaque, Mohammad A, 2007. "WTO and regional trade negotiation outcomes: quantitative assessments of potential implications on Bangladesh," MPRA Paper 38475, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    14. Escaith, Hubert & Tamenu, Bekele, 2013. "Least-Developed Countries' Trade During the "Super-Cycle" and the Great Trade Collapse: Patterns and Stylized Facts," MPRA Paper 51997, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Paul Collier & Anthony J. Venables, 2007. "Rethinking Trade Preferences: How Africa Can Diversify its Exports," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 1326-1345, August.
    16. Mathilde Douillet, 2012. "Trade policies and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa Comparative analysis in a Computable General Equilibrium framework [Politiques commerciales et agriculture en Afrique Sub-Saharienne : analyse c," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) tel-03676037, HAL.
    17. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2006. "Non-reciprocal preference erosion arising from MFN liberalitzation in agriculture: What are the risks?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2006-02, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    18. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," Working Paper Series rwp06-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Rafael E. De Hoyos & Maurizio Bussolo & Oscar Nú�ez, 2012. "Exports, Gender Wage Gaps, and Poverty in Honduras," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 533-551, December.
    20. Frederik Stender, 2018. "MERCOSUR in gravity: an accounting approach to analyzing its trade effects," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 501-522, April.
    21. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," Working Paper Series rwp06-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    22. Bernard Hoekman, 2007. "Doha, Development And Discrimination," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 267-292, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ess:wpaper:id:289. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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.