Economic research and trade policy analysis

This paper examines the role of competition law and policy as tools for poverty reduction and development. The authors put forward five related principles, building upon the important work on related issues that has been done by the OECD, the International Competition Network (ICN), UNCTAD and civil society organizations such as CUTS in recent years, in addition to the earlier work done on these topics in the WTO Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy when that body was active from 1997 through 2003. Together, these principles comprise the "holistic approach" to competition law and policy which is referenced in the title of the paper: First, the focus of policy makers in using competition policy as tool for poverty reduction should be on approaches that are relatively easy to implement but have a trackrecord of being effective and economically sound. Second, for competition policy reforms and legislation to be successful, public acceptance and support is critical and must be an essential focus of related initiatives. Third, to serve as an effective tool of poverty reduction, competition policy needs to address the needs of the citizens of poorer societies in their capacities as producers (and, therefore, as users of extensive input goods and services, including public infrastructure), in addition to their capacities as final consumers/households. Fourth, it is posited that "competition policy" is more than just "what competition agencies do" and includes the full spectrum of measures that governments employ to enhance competition and improve the performance of markets. Fifth, in order to address the challenges posed by the changing landscape of competition policy worldwide, new forms of international co-operation may need to be considered. The paper then develops the application of these principles with respect to five specific areas in which competition policy can contribute to poverty reduction, namely: (i) the reform of public and business infrastructure sectors, particularly in the context of developing and transition economies; (ii) the complementary roles of competition law enforcement and market liberalization in public procurement markets; (iii) various related dimensions of competition policy as they relate to public health objectives; (iv) the addressing of possible monopsonistic practices in international supply chains that may affect the ability of developing country producers to reap gains from participation in international markets; and (v) measures to address the enduring problem of international cartels which, despite an impressive record of prosecutions by developed jurisdiction competition agencies over the past decade, continue to impose substantial costs on developing economies. The paper concludes with some observations regarding the future of international cooperation in the competition policy sphere.

This paper assembles detailed information on the market access provisions in trade in goods contained in 192 active regional trade agreements (RTAs) notified to the WTO as of November 2010. Although market access provisions in trade in goods in RTAs have been addressed in a number of studies, much of this work has been limited to subsets of RTAs, particularly plurilateral RTAs involving three or more parties. The goal of the current study is to expand beyond the more commonly studied RTAs and to include all RTAs notified to the WTO for which data are available. This task has been facilitated by the recent Transparency Mechanism for RTAs (TM), adopted in 2006, that provides the basis for the systematic provision of detailed tariff and trade data by WTO Members engaged in RTAs. This information has been supplemented by other public sources of data, where available. A number of trends are evident. While a majority of RTAs result in a reasonably high degree of liberalization overall (with developing countries often liberalizing as much or more than developed countries), liberalization is not uniform across products or RTA parties. In some RTAs the degree of iberalization appears to be a negotiated outcome, depending on the RTA partner. Agricultural goods continue to be subject to lower levels of liberalization, frequent product exclusions and systematic protection in some RTAs, regardless of the RTA partner's comparative advantage. Nonetheless, a lower level of ambition in some RTAs is tempered by a commitment to negotiate further concessions or expand upon the RTA's scope at some future point: more than half the RTAs analysed contain such a commitment. Much has been written about the potential for the multilateralization of commitments undertaken in RTAs. While there may be scope for positive externalities in terms of regulatory convergence particularly with regard to services liberalization undertaken in RTAs, there is less evidence in this study to suggest that increased market access in merchandise goods leads to a more favourable trading environment for third parties. Continuing constructive engagement by WTO Members in the Transparency Mechanism through the provision of data, timely notifications, and submission of implementation reports will increase the availability of tariff and trade liberalization data, thus facilitating further examination of the topics highlighted in the study as worthy of future research.

Advances in information and communications technologies (ICTs) and new business models have widened opportunities for trade in digitized ideas, shaping global value chains and production networks in cultural or creative goods and services. However, much of this trade has eluded conventional categorization and new business models. In particular multinational firms have blurred the way international transactions can be recorded and how this can be transformed into relevant statistics for policy makers, research and for businesses themselves. Recent international statistical guidelines have suggested a number of improvements to better respond to policy information needs, including in the area of trade, innovation or culture. However, a number of questions remain unanswered. The objective of the paper is therefore to trace the conceptual and empirical statistical picture and assess the quality of existing statistics and the extent to which important trade in digitized ideas is inadequately measured. It discusses conceptual issues, and constraints encountered in gaining a full picture. A number of possible data collection and compilation solutions are suggested to enable a better understanding of this trade.

Trade costs such as applied tariffs, transportation and insurance costs are amplified as they pass through the multiple production steps associated with modern supply chains. This socalled "cascade effect" arises since trade costs accumulate as intermediate goods are imported and then re-exported further downstream, going through different processing nodes before reaching the final consumer. Moreover, the financial impact of these trade costs is magnified in the "trade in tasks" rationale which governs global value chains (GVCs). Specialised processing firms need to recoup the associated trade cost applying to the full value of the good from the smaller fraction of value-added created at each consecutive productive stage. This large relative weight of transaction expenses on the profitability of individual business operations explains why trade along GVCs is particularly exposed to trade costs. The paper reviews the implications of trade costs on competitiveness at industry, national and global levels. The financial implications of trade costs at firm and sectoral level are based on trade in value-added data for 2011. The multilateral welfare effects of reducing discrete trade costs are identified using a network analysis approach, which goes beyond the traditional bilateral dimension of international trade and identifies where trade facilitation investment would have the highest social returns from a GVC perspective. The authors conclude that while the direct benefits of trade facilitation will be proportionally higher for those countries that are not well integrated into international trade because of their high trade costs, the global benefits of trade facilitation investments will also be high if they are undertaken by key traders that lie at the core of global value chains.

This paper investigates whether TBT provisions included in RTAs differ from those under the WTO TBT Agreement, and, if they do, whether they entail broader commitments. Our analysis covers 238 RTAs, of which 171 include at least one provision, and focuses on the provisions on technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, transparency, dispute settlement, marking and labelling and sector-specific commitments. We find that all RTAs signed since 2010 systematically include TBT provisions and that the most frequent provisions are those referring to the TBT Agreement and transparency. Moreover, even if there are RTAs that include new or broader commitments than the TBT Agreement, our study shows that their number remains very limited. For instance, relatively few RTAs have included provisions to better implement WTO provisions in the area of transparency or provisions requiring the equivalence or harmonization of technical regulations among the parties or even the recognition of conformity assessment results. RTAs with a dispute settlement provision that applies exclusively to TBT issues are also very few. These RTAs give in general exclusive jurisdiction to the WTO DSM over TBT related disputes. Finally, also only a minority of RTAs include provisions on new issues such as marking and labelling or sector-specific provisions, typically for electric and electronic products, pharmaceuticals or vehicles.

As an internationally standardized product nomenclature, the Harmonized System (HS) is used by WTO Members in their schedules of concessions and in the definitions of product coverage for a number of WTO agreements. The Harmonized System is normally amended by the World Customs Organization every four to six years. These amendments pose considerable challenges for the WTO and its Members. On the one hand, Members need to periodically update their historical schedules of concessions into the latest nomenclature. On the other hand, these amendments may have implications for the definition and thus also the implementation of some WTO agreements where the product coverage is defined in terms of the HS. In either case, the product codes and/or descriptions in the old HS version need to be transposed precisely into those in the new version of HS nomenclature in order to retain the historical concessions or the product coverage unchanged. Given the complexity of HS amendments, this process could be very technical and sometimes tricky. This paper starts by providing an overview of the HS amendments and proposing a categorization of those HS changes in the context of transposition. It then looks back at the history of the introduction of the HS and its subsequent amendments into the WTO schedules and assesses the difficulties and problems which have been faced by WTO Members. On the basis of such analysis, it introduces the successful procedures and methodologies used by WTO Members and the WTO Secretariat to deal with the recent HS2002 transposition. The paper also discusses the implications of the HS amendments to three WTO agreements and the possible approaches to transpose their product lists into a new HS nomenclature.

Most international commerce is carried out by multinational firms, which use their foreign affiliates for the majority of their foreign sales. In this paper, I examine the determinants of multinational firms’ location and production decisions and the welfare implications of multinational production. The few existing quantitative general equilibrium models that incorporate multinational firms achieve tractability by assuming away export platforms – i.e. they do not allow foreign affiliates of multinationals to export – or by ignoring fixed costs associated with foreign investment. I develop a quantifiable multi-country general equilibrium model, which tractably handles multinational firms that engage in export platform sales and that face fixed costs of foreign investment. I first estimate the model using German firm-level data to uncover the size and nature of costs of multinational enterprise and show that fixed costs of foreign investment are large. Second, I calibrate the model to data on trade and multinational production for twelve European and North American countries. Counterfactual results reveal that multinationals play an important role in transmitting technological improvements to foreign countries as they can jump the barriers to international trade; I find that a twenty percent increase in the productivity of US firms leads to welfare gains in foreign countries an order of magnitude larger than in a world in which multinational production is disallowed. I demonstrate the usefulness of the model for current policy analysis by studying the pending Canada-EU trade and investment agreement; I find that a twenty percent drop in the barriers to foreign production between the signatories would divert about seven percent of the production of EU multinationals from the US to Canada.

Economic theory has made considerable progress in explaining why sovereign countries cooperate in trade. Central to most theories of trade cooperation are issues of self-enforcement: The threat of reprisal by an aggrieved party maintains the initial balance of concessions and prevents opportunism. However, economic scholarship has been less coherent in explaining why countries choose to settle and enforce their trade disputes with the help of an impartial third party, a “trade court”. Typically, economists focusing on the purpose of trade agreements have assumed away the very reasons why institutions are needed, since under standard assumptions, neither defection from the rules nor disputes are expected to occur. This paper is a step towards the formulation of a coherent economic theory of dispute settlement. It challenges traditional models of enforcement (primarily concerned with acts of punishment) for being insufficient in explaining the existence of dispute settlement institutions. We perform a comprehensive analysis of the economics of dispute settlement institutions and demonstrate to what extent the literatures of trade cooperation and dispute institutions are (and should be) interlinked. On the basis of these theories, we show that dispute settlement institutions in trade agreements may assume a variety of roles, including that of an information repository and disseminator, an honest broker, an arbitrator and calculator of damages, an active information gatherer or an adjudicator.

This paper is concerned with three problems in the interpretation of the national treatment obligation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). First, the precise domain of Article XVII on national treatment has not been clearly delineated, particularly in relation to Article XVI dealing with market access. Secondly, there is a difference between the text of Article XVII and the structure of the schedules of commitments, which makes it difficult to interpret the scope of the national treatment obligation even for identical services supplied through different modes. The final, and most complex, problem arises in establishing the definition of "like" services and "like" service suppliers. Uncertainty about the precise meaning of the national treatment obligation may undermine the key GATS objective of creating a secure, predictable trading environment. Moreover, the extent of liberalization implied by the commitments under GATS depends on the precise choice of interpretation.

The WTO Secretariat has published two information notes on issues relating to the manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines.