IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/12971.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Amiti
  • John Romalis

Abstract

This paper assesses the effects of reducing tariffs under the Doha Round on market access for developing countries. It shows that for many developing countries, actual preferential access is less generous than it appears because of low product coverage or complex rules of origin. Thus lowering tariffs under the multilateral system is likely to lead to a net increase in market access for many developing countries, with gains in market access offsetting losses from preference erosion. Furthermore, comparing various tariff-cutting proposals, the research shows that the largest gains in market access are generated by higher tariff cuts in agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," NBER Working Papers 12971, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12971 Note: ITI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12971.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Francois & Will Martin, 2003. "Formula Approaches for Market Access Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 1-28, January.
    2. Baldwin, R E & Murray, Tracy, 1977. "MFN Tariff Reductions and Developing Country Trade Benefits under the GSP," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 30-46, March.
    3. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2005. "Consequences of Alternative Formulas for Agricultural Tariff Cuts," Working Papers 2005-15, CEPII research center.
    4. Hans P Lankes & Katerina Alexandraki, 2004. "The Impact of Preference Erosionon Middle-Income Developing Countries," IMF Working Papers 04/169, International Monetary Fund.
    5. John Romalis, 2007. "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 416-435, August.
    6. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, pages 197-216.
    7. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1611-1638.
    8. Kimberly A. Clausing, 2001. "Trade creation and trade diversion in the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 677-696, August.
    9. Huiwen Lai & Daniel Trefler, 2002. "The Gains from Trade with Monopolistic Competition: Specification, Estimation, and Mis-Specification," NBER Working Papers 9169, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Carolyn Evans & James Harrigan, 2005. "Tight Clothing. How the MFA Affects Asian Apparel Exports," NBER Chapters,in: International Trade in East Asia, NBER-East Asia Seminar on Economics, Volume 14, pages 367-390 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Yongzheng Yang, 2005. "Africa in the Doha Round; Dealing with Preference Erosion and Beyond," IMF Policy Discussion Papers 05/8, International Monetary Fund.
    12. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    13. Brenton, Paul & Ikezuki, Takako, 2004. "The initial and potential impact of preferential access to the U.S. market under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3262, The World Bank.
    14. James Devault, 1996. "Competitive Need Limits And The U.S. Generalized System Of Preference," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(4), pages 58-66, October.
    15. Dean, Judith M. & Wainio, John, 2006. "Quantifying the value of U.S. tariff preferences for developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3977, The World Bank.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Valentina Raimondi & Margherita Scoppola & Alessandro Olper, 2012. "The Impact of European Union Preferential Policies in the Rice Industry: A Dynamic Panel Gravity Approach," FOODSECURE Working papers 4, LEI Wageningen UR.
    4. John Romalis, 2007. "Market Access, Openness and Growth," NBER Working Papers 13048, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Richard Pomfret & Uwe Kaufmann & Christopher Findlay, 2010. "Are Preferential Tariffs Utilized? Evidence from Australian Imports, 2000-9," School of Economics Working Papers 2010-13, University of Adelaide, School of Economics.
    6. Hamanaka, Shintaro, 2013. "A note on detecting biases in assessing the use of FTAs," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, pages 24-32.
    7. Pedro J. Martinez Edo, 2011. "Reciprocal liberalization: Bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral?," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    8. Valentina Raimondi & Margherita Scoppola & Alessandro Olper, 2012. "Preference erosion and the developing countries exports to the EU: a dynamic panel gravity approach," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 148(4), pages 707-732, December.
    9. Persson, Maria, 2013. "Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective," Working Papers 2013:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Lili Yan Ing & Shujiro Urata & Yoshifumi Fukunaga, . "How Do Exports and Imports Affect the Use of Free Trade Agreements? Firm-level Survey Evidence from Southeast Asia," Chapters, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    11. Simeon Djankov & Caroline Freund & Cong S. Pham, 2010. "Trading on Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 166-173, February.
    12. Olga Pindyuk & Leon Podkaminer & Sandor Richter, 2008. "Monthly Report No. 1/2008," wiiw Monthly Reports 2008-01, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 9437.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    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:nbr:nberwo:12971. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.