IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1022.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A new approach to evaluating trade policy

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, James E.
  • Neary, J. Peter

Abstract

The authors introduce a new measure, the Trade Restrictiveness Index, to measure the restrictiveness of a system of trade protection. They propose an alternative to the commonly used ad hoc indexes of trade restrictiveness, such as the trade-weighted average tariff. That measure has no welfare-theoretic basis and can be highly misleading, in practice. For example, the complete exclusion of trade in a commodity would usually lower the index, because its trade weight would fall to zero. The authors show that their proposed index is soundly based in standard welfare economics. When trade is restricted by tariffs only, the Trade Restrictiveness Index equals the uniform tariff, which would be equivalent to the existing system of tariffs in the sense of yielding the same level of aggregate welfare. But tariffs have declined in importance in recent years as a means of restricting trade, so the measure must also be able to take account of quantitative restrictions on trade. Where quotas are the only form of restriction, this is easy: the Index equals the equiproportionate reduction in permitted import volumes that is welfare-equivalent to the initial structure of quotas. When both quotas and tariffs are present, the Index can be defined as the uniform tariff factor (one plus the uniform tariff) and uniform import reduction factor which would yield the same level of welfare as the initial system of trade restrictions. The authors show how this can be formulated, noting that if a single good is subject to both a binding quota and a tariff, it should be viewed as quota-constrained - the tariff serves merely to ensure that some of the rents accrue to the importing country. These theoretical derivations permit a major synthesis of the theory of protection and suggest how the results of computable general equilibrium models might be presented to make them internationally and intertemporally comparable. But in most cases such a model is not available and, even if it were, it would not be sufficiently disaggregated to deal with a complicated system of trade protection. So the authors present some empirical short-cuts that can be adopted for estimating changes in the Index. Chief among these is the assumption that the goods under consideration are separable from others in an appropriate general-equilibrium sense. This can provide a rigorous foundation for a form of partial-equilibrium analysis (the consideration of a subset of markets in an economy). They also show how the Trade Restrictiveness Index can be adapted to allow for different forms of rent sharing and for a country's ability to influence its terms of trade. Applying these empirical methods to exports of textiles and apparel from Hong Kong to the United States, the authors find that the protective system becomes more restrictive for both countries over the seven years considered (1982-88). Increased trade restrictiveness does not necessarily mean that quotas have been tightened. When there is economic growth, constant or even rising import quotas might still amount to a tightening of protection. Results based on the trade-weighted average of"tariff equivalents"(the gaps between Hong Kong and U.S. prices) diverge significantly from those of the Trade Restrictiveness Index. The two measures have opposite implications for the change in trade restrictiveness for two-thirds of the observations.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, James E. & Neary, J. Peter, 1992. "A new approach to evaluating trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1022, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1992/11/01/000009265_3961003162110/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neary, J Peter, 1995. "Trade Liberalisation and Shadow Prices in the Presence of Tariffs and Quotas," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 36(3), pages 531-554, August.
    2. Anderson, James E & Neary, J Peter, 1992. "Trade Reform with Quotas, Partial Rent Retention, and Tariffs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 57-76, January.
    3. James E. Anderson, 1988. "The Relative Inefficiency of Quotas," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511789, December.
    4. Fukushima, Takashi, 1981. "A dynamic quantity adjustment process in a small open economy, and welfare effects of tariff changes," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 513-529, November.
    5. Tatsuo Hatta, 1977. "A Theory of Piecemeal Policy Recommendations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Trela, I. & Whalley, J., 1989. "Unravelling The Threads Of The Mfa," Papers 448, Stockholm - International Economic Studies.
    7. Diewert, W. E., 1985. "A dynamic approach to the measurement of waste in an open economy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 213-240, November.
    8. Neary, J. P. & Roberts, K. W. S., 1980. "The theory of household behaviour under rationing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 25-42, January.
    9. Foster, Edward & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1970. "Price Distortion and Economic Welfare," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(2), pages 281-297, March.
    10. Peter Neary, 1988. "Tariffs, Quotas, and Voluntary Export Restraints with and without Internationally Mobile Capital," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 21(4), pages 714-735, November.
    11. Lloyd, P. J., 1974. "A more general theory of price distortions in open economies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 365-386, November.
    12. Falvey, Rodney E., 1988. "Tariffs, quotas and piecemeal policy reform," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 177-183, August.
    13. Lopez, Ramon & Panagariya, Arvind, 1992. "On the Theory of Piecemeal Tariff Reform: The Case of Pure Imported Intermediate Inputs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 615-625, June.
    14. Corden, W. Max & Falvey, Rodney E., 1985. "Quotas and the second best," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 67-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anderson, James E & Bannister, Geoffrey J & Neary, J Peter, 1995. "Domestic Distortions and International Trade," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 36(1), pages 139-157, February.
    2. J. Peter Neary, 2007. "Simultaneous Reform of Tariffs and Quotas," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 37-44, February.
    3. Krishna, Pravin & Panagariya, Arvind, 2000. "A unification of second best results in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 235-257, December.
    4. James E. Anderson & Arja Turunen-Red, 1999. "Trade Reform with a Government Budget Constraint," International Economic Association Series, in: John Piggott & Alan Woodland (ed.), International Trade Policy and the Pacific Rim, chapter 9, pages 217-244, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Zohra Bouamra Mechemache, 2006. "The Economic Efficiency of Policy Reform and Partial Market Liberalization under Transaction Costs," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 161-191, July.
    6. J. Neary, 2006. "International Trade and the Environment: Theoretical and Policy Linkages," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 95-118, January.
    7. David Franck, 1999. "Tariff and Quota Reform with International Capital Mobility," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(1), pages 132-143, July.
    8. J. Peter Neary, 1998. "Pitfalls in the Theory of International Trade Policy: Concertina Reforms of Tariffs, and Subsidies to High‐Technology Industries," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 187-206, March.
    9. Pascalis Raimondos-Møller & Alan Woodland, 2014. "Steepest ascent tariff reform," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(1), pages 69-99, January.
    10. Salvatici, Luca & Carter, Colin A. & Sumner, Daniel A., 1997. "The Trade Restrictiveness Index and its Potential Contribution to Agricultural Policy Analysis," 1997 Conference, August 10-16, 1997, Sacramento, California 197065, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Salvatici, Luca & Carter, Colin A. & Sumner, Daniel A., 1997. "The Trade Restrictiveness Index: The Potential Contribution To Agricultural Policy Analysis," 1997 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Toronto, Canada 21028, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Rod Falvey, 1994. "Revenue enhancing tariff reform," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(1), pages 175-190, March.
    13. James E. Anderson & Will Martin, 2011. "Costs of Taxation and Benefits of Public Goods with Multiple Taxes and Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(2), pages 289-309, April.
    14. Anderson, James E, 1995. "Tariff-Index Theory," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 156-173, June.
    15. Anderson, James E. & Neary, J. Peter, 2016. "Sufficient statistics for tariff reform when revenue matters," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 150-159.
    16. James E. Anderson, 2002. "Trade Reform Diagnostics with Many Households, Quotas, and Tariffs," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 215-236, May.
    17. Kreickemeier, Udo & Raimondos-Møller, Pascalis, 2008. "Tari[ff]-tax reforms and market access," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, August.
    18. Will Martin & James E. Anderson, 2005. "Costs of Taxation and the Benefits of Public Goods: The Role of Income Effects," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 617, Boston College Department of Economics.
    19. David Franck & Nadeem Naqvi, 2000. "LDCs, International Capital Mobility and the Shadow Price of Foreign Exchange under Tariffs and Quantitative Restrictions," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 43-54, December.
    20. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2013. "Revenue Tariff Reform," NBER Working Papers 19752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics&Policies; Trade Policy; Transport and Trade Logistics; Economic Theory&Research; TF054105-DONOR FUNDED OPERATION ADMINISTRATION FEE INCOME AND EXPENSE ACCOUNT;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • 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:wbk:wbrwps:1022. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.