IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lunewp/2013_003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to offer a comprehensive overview of non-reciprocal trade preferences. Legal and economic aspects are discussed, and in particular, focus is put on how the specific design of preference programs influence whether or not preferences will have their intended effects. The paper starts by summarizing the historical and legal background of non-reciprocal trade preferences, and thereafter discusses how preferences are intended to work from an economic point of view. Further, the paper discusses ways to determine whether or not preferences meet their intended targets, and outlines in some detail how preference programs differ in their design. The question of how trade preferences could have negative effects for recipient and non-recipient countries is explored, and the paper concludes by discussing whether trade preferences will be a useful policy alternative in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Persson, Maria, 2013. "Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective," Working Papers 2013:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2013_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://project.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/papers/WP13_3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Persson & Fredrik Wilhelmsson, 2016. "EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 16-53, January.
    2. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1707-1721, September.
    3. Lorand Bartels, 2003. "The WTO Enabling Clause and Positive Conditionality in the European Community's GSP Program," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 507-532, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2006. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 217-240.
    6. Ingo Borchert, 2009. "Trade diversion under selective preferential market access," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1390-1410, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Marcelo Olarreaga & Çaglar Özden, 2005. "AGOA and Apparel: Who Captures the Tariff Rent in the Presence of Preferential Market Access?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 63-77, January.
    11. Grossman, Gene M. & Sykes, Alan O., 2005. "A preference for development: the law and economics of GSP," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(01), pages 41-67, March.
    12. Persson, Maria & Wilhelmsson, Fredrik, 2006. "Assessing the Effects of EU Trade Preferences for Developing Countries," Working Papers 2006:4, Lund University, Department of Economics, revised 26 Jun 2006.
    13. Lorand Bartels & Christian Häberli, 2010. "Binding Tariff Preferences for Developing Countries Under Article II Gatt," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 969-995, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unilateral trade preferences; non-reciprocal trade agreements; GSP;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    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:hhs:lunewp:2013_003. 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: (David Edgerton). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/delunse.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.

    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.