IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nip/nipewp/06-2013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Single Market non-compliance: how relevant is the institutional setting?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of the national institutional setting of EU member states in explaining Single Market non-compliance regarding non-tariff barriers in intra-EU trade. This study uses data on infringements to Single Market law on the free movement of goods. After controlling for country and industry-specific factors, we show that domestic institutional characteristics are relevant to explain non-compliance ensuing from trade protection measures implemented by EU countries. While government independence from political pressures and higher levels of representativeness and accountability reduce the propensity of member states to infringe upon Single Market laws on the free movement of goods, better regulatory quality increases the probability of non-compliance at industry level, suggesting that increases in competition generate protectionist measures that violate Single Market law.

Suggested Citation

  • Natália Barbosa & Maria Helena Guimarães & Ana Paula Faria, 2013. "Single Market non-compliance: how relevant is the institutional setting?," NIPE Working Papers 06/2013, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
  • Handle: RePEc:nip:nipewp:06/2013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe/docs/2013/NIPE_WP_06_2013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
    2. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "The Regulation of Entry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(1), pages 1-37.
    3. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(03), pages 571-605, July.
    4. Luc Laeven & Christopher Woodruff, 2007. "The Quality of the Legal System, Firm Ownership, and Firm Size," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 601-614, November.
    5. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-160, February.
    6. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    7. Karacaovali, Baybars & Limão, Nuno, 2008. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 299-327, March.
    8. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    9. Krishna B. Kumar & Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, "undated". "What Determines Firm Size?," CRSP working papers 496, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    10. repec:hrv:faseco:30747190 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bettina Becker & Martin Theuringer, 2000. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," IWP Discussion Paper Series 02/2000, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany.
    12. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(02), pages 203-223, March.
    13. Becker Bettina & Theuringer Martin, 2001. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 50(3), pages 350-374, December.
    14. Steinberg, Richard H., 2002. "In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(02), pages 339-374, March.
    15. Susanna Thede, 2005. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade Protection," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 313-328, March.
    16. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
    17. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Is protection really for sale? A survey and directions for future research," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 181-191, March.
    18. Davis, Steven J & Henrekson, Magnus, 1999. "Explaining National Differences in the Size and Industry Distribution of Employment," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 59-83, February.
    19. Heather A. D. Mbaye, 2001. "Why National States Comply with Supranational Law," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 259-281, October.
    20. Chen, Natalie, 2004. "Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-118, May.
    21. Vincent Aussilloux & Charlotte Emlinger & Lionel Fontagné, 2011. "What Benefits from Completing the Single Market," La Lettre du CEPII, CEPII research center, issue 316.
    22. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Gravity, trade integration, and heterogeneity across industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 206-221.
    23. Marianna Belloc & Paolo Guerrieri, 2008. "Special Interest Groups and Trade Policy in the EU," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 457-478, September.
    24. Mansfield, Edward D. & Busch, Marc L., 1995. "The political economy of nontariff barriers: a cross-national analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(04), pages 723-749, September.
    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. Belloc, Marianna, 2015. "Information for sale in the European Union," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 130-144.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Single Market; institutional setting; non-compliance; trade protection; non-tariff barriers; count data models.;

    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:nip:nipewp:06/2013. 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: (Maria João Thompson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nipampt.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.