IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wtowps/ersd202114.html

Services Domestic Regulation - Locking in good regulatory practices: Analyzing the prevalence of Services Domestic Regulation disciplines and their potential linkages with economic performance

Author

Listed:
  • Baiker, Laura
  • Bertola, Elena
  • Jelitto, Markus

Abstract

Services is the fastest-growing sector of today's global economy and trade in services is the most dynamic segment of world trade. However, its potential remains constrained by a variety of barriers: trade costs are estimated to be almost double those in goods, and more than 40% of trade costs are accounted for by regulation-related factors. Regulatory measures related to the permission to supply a service, i.e. those related to licensing and qualifications requirements and procedures, and technical standards, can particularly affect service suppliers' ability to trade. With a view to mitigating the unintended trade-restrictive effects of such measures, since 2017, a group of Members has been negotiating a set of regulatory disciplines in the context of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. Since the launch of negotiations in the Joint Initiative at the margins of the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference, a number of delegations have approached the WTO Secretariat for assistance on assessing to what extent their domestic regulatory regimes are consistent with the disciplines on services domestic regulation that the Joint Initiative has developed ("SDR disciplines"), as well as to understand what potential benefits the implementation of such disciplines might bring to their economies. This Paper expands on the individual assistance provided to WTO Members and has the following three objectives: (i) to examine the prevalence of the SDR disciplines in regional and bilateral trade agreements; (ii) to evaluate to what extent Members have already implemented SDRrelated measures in their national regulatory frameworks; and (iii) to analyze the potential linkages between the application of the SDR disciplines and economic performance. Firstly, based on a sample of 74 agreements concluded by 151 Members, we show that the adoption of domestic regulatory disciplines in trade agreements is a fairly established practice, particularly among "new generation" agreements concluded after 2005. Almost 40% of the Members in our sample, across all income levels and regions, being participants of the Joint Initiative or not, have committed on average to at least half of the SDR disciplines. Secondly, we analyze the level of implementation of the SDR disciplines in national regulatory frameworks using a sample of 86 Members. Not only have Members signed on to the SDR disciplines in their trade agreements, but they have also undertaken substantive regulatory reforms that implement these measures at the national level. We find that more than half of the economies in our sample have implemented in their regulatory regimes at least two thirds of the SDR disciplines under study. Lastly, while our research does not claim to establish causal relationships, we provide initial insights on the potential linkages between the application of the SDR disciplines and various indicators of economic performance, including services value-added, share of services trade, participation in global value chains, and level of entrepreneurship.

Suggested Citation

  • Baiker, Laura & Bertola, Elena & Jelitto, Markus, 2021. "Services Domestic Regulation - Locking in good regulatory practices: Analyzing the prevalence of Services Domestic Regulation disciplines and their potential linkages with economic performance," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2021-14, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wtowps:ersd202114
    DOI: 10.30875/b7c357b1-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/242937/1/1771291788.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30875/b7c357b1-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gari, Gabriel, 2020. "Recent Preferential Trade Agreements’ Disciplines for Tackling Regulatory Divergence in Services: How Far beyond GATS?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 1-29, January.
    2. Klapper, Leora & Laeven, Luc & Rajan, Raghuram, 2004. "Business environment and firm entry : Evidence from international data," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3232, The World Bank.
    3. Bruno Casella & Richard Bolwijn & Daniel Moran & Keiichiro Kanemoto, . "Improving the analysis of global value chains: the UNCTAD-Eora Database," UNCTAD Transnational Corporations Journal, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    4. Iza Lejárraga & Ben Shepherd, 2013. "Quantitative Evidence on Transparency in Regional Trade Agreements," OECD Trade Policy Papers 153, OECD Publishing.
    5. Przemyslaw Kowalski & Javier Lopez Gonzalez & Alexandros Ragoussis & Cristian Ugarte, 2015. "Participation of Developing Countries in Global Value Chains: Implications for Trade and Trade-Related Policies," OECD Trade Policy Papers 179, OECD Publishing.
    6. Lee Branstetter & Francisco Lima & Lowell J. Taylor & Ana Venâncio, 2014. "Do Entry Regulations Deter Entrepreneurship and Job Creation? Evidence from Recent Reforms in Portugal," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(577), pages 805-832, June.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    8. Klapper, Leora & Laeven, Luc & Rajan, Raghuram, 2006. "Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 591-629, December.
    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. World Bank & World Trade Organization, 2022. "Trade Therapy," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 37494.
    2. Olga Biryukova, 2022. "Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation in the WTO: The Case of Russia," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(4), pages 594-605, September.

    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. Chuantao Cui & Leona Shao-Zhi Li, 2024. "More but not better: Career incentives of local leaders and entrepreneurial entry in China," Working Papers 202417, University of Macau, Faculty of Business Administration.
    2. Cui, Chuantao & Li, Leona Shao-Zhi, 2023. "Trade policy uncertainty and new firm entry: Evidence from China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Miguel García-Posada & Juan Mora-Sanguinetti, 2015. "Entrepreneurship and enforcement institutions: disaggregated evidence for Spain," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 49-74, August.
    4. Ge, Jing & Liu, Ruiming & Zhou, Boyang, 2026. "Hidden costs of entry regulation in vertical oligopolies and the crowding-out effect on entrepreneurs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    5. Amoroso, Sara & Martino, Roberto, 2020. "Regulations and technology gap in Europe: The role of firm dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Davud Rostam-Afschar, 2014. "Entry regulation and entrepreneurship: a natural experiment in German craftsmanship," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1067-1101, November.
    7. Philipp Lergetporer & Jens Ruhose & Lisa Simon, 2018. "Entry Barriers and the Labor Market Outcomes of Incumbent Workers: Evidence from a Deregulation Reform in the German Crafts Sector," CESifo Working Paper Series 7274, CESifo.
    8. Elena Podrecca, 2013. "Riforme del mercato dei prodotti e crescita della produttivit?. Teoria ed evidenza empirica," ECONOMIA E SOCIET? REGIONALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 10-41.
    9. Giacomelli, Silvia & Tonello, Marco, 2018. "Assessing bureaucratic start-up costs through Mystery Calls. Evidence from the One-stop shops for doing business," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 121-140.
    10. Chen, Shaojian & Mao, Hui & Feng, Zongxian, 2020. "Political uncertainty and firm entry: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing industries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 16-30.
    11. Su, Yu & Xu, Bin & Zeng, Xin, 2026. "How does entry deregulation affect employment: Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-20.
    12. Francesco Caselli & Nicola Gennaioli, 2008. "Economics and Politics of Alternative Institutional Reforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1197-1250.
    13. Vahagn Jerbashian & Anna Kochanova, 2016. "The impact of doing business regulations on investments in ICT," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 991-1008, May.
    14. Fabiano Schivardi & Eliana Viviano, 2007. "Entry barriers in Italian retail trade," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 616, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    15. Carmen Pagés-Serra & Reyes Aterido & Mary Hallward-Driemeier, 2007. "Clima de negocios y creación de empleo: El efecto del acceso al crédito, la corrupción y el marco regulatorio en el crecimiento de las empresas," Research Department Publications 4560, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    16. Da Rin, Marco & Di Giacomo, Marina & Sembenelli, Alessandro, 2011. "Entrepreneurship, firm entry, and the taxation of corporate income: Evidence from Europe," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1048-1066.
    17. Chen, Xilu & Ge, Erqi & Xu, Xianxiang & Zhou, Quan, 2025. "Does digitalization of government activities improve business environment? The influence of public service standardization," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 533-560.
    18. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2009-034 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Idowu Emmanuel Olubodun & James Temitope Dada & Olabisi Damilola Omodara & Mosab I. Tabash, 2025. "Ease of Doing Business and Enterprise Creation in Africa: A Cross-country Panel Analysis," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 34(1), pages 151-180, February.
    20. Léon, Florian & Weill, Laurent, 2026. "Do elections shape firm dynamics?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    21. Prantl, Susanne & Spitz-Oener, Alexandra, 2009. "How does entry regulation influence entry into self-employment and occupational mobility?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2009-034, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • L8 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law

    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:zbw:wtowps:ersd202114. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtoerch.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.