DOCSLIB.ORG

World Trade Report 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
World Trade Report 2018 C The economics of how digital technologies impact trade This section focuses on how new technologies are transforming international trade, creating new opportunities for a more inclusive trading system and raising new challenges. The section opens with a discussion of how digital technologies affect international trade costs. This is followed by an assessment of how digital technologies change the nature of what is traded, how we trade and who trades what. Finally, the potential impact of important trends in technological development is quantified and long-term projections on international trade are made, using the WTO Global Trade Model. Contents 1. Lower trade costs: opportunities and challenges 64 2. Changes in trade patterns 80 3. Quantitative analysis of the impact of new technologies on trade 110 4. Conclusions 116 Appendix C.1: Trade costs decomposition 118 Appendix C.2: IP protection and comparative advantage in IP-intensive industries 120 Appendix C.3: Details on the quantitative analysis using the Global Trade Model (GTM) 122 Some key facts and findings • International trade costs declined by 15 per cent between 1996 and 2014. New technologies will help to further reduce trade costs. Our projections predict that trade could grow yearly by 1.8-2 percentage points more until 2030 as a result of the falling trade costs, amounting to a cumulated growth of 31 to 34 percentage points over 15 years. • The wide adoption of digital technologies changes the composition of trade in services and goods and redefines intellectual property rights in trade. Trade in information technology products has tripled in the past two decades, reaching US$ 1.6 trillion in 2016. • The importance of services in the composition of trade is expected to increase. We predict the share of services trade to grow from 21 per cent to 25 per cent by 2030. • Digitalization has led to a decline in trade of digitizable goods (e.g. CDs, books and newspapers) from 2.7 per cent of total goods trade in 2000 to 0.8 per cent in 2016. The trend is likely to continue with the advent of 3D printing technology. • Regulation of intellectual property rights, data flows, and privacy as well as the quality of digital infrastructure are likely to emerge as new sources of comparative advantage. • The decline in trade costs can be especially beneficial for MSMEs and firms from developing countries, if appropriate complementary policies are put in place, and challenges related to technology diffusion and regulation are addressed. Our estimations foresee that, in such case, developing countries' share in global trade could grow from 46 per cent in 2015 to 57 per cent by 2030. 1. Lower trade costs: opportunities North”) and between developed and developing and challenges (“North-South”) countries. Trade costs among developing countries (“South-South”) were the slowest to decline at the beginning of the period, but Section B discussed how digital technology is their decline gained momentum after the mid-2000s, transforming economic activity, focusing purchasing outpacing the rest. habits increasingly on the internet and changing the ways in which businesses operate by enabling them The declining trend is in line with a recent study by to access data on consumer preferences and to Egger et al. (2018), who show that total trade costs adapt their product cycles and marketing strategies declined both in the manufacturing and services to this information. In this subsection, we look at the sectors during the period between 1995 and 2011. potential of digital technologies to reduce trade costs. They also show that trade costs are higher for We show that digital technologies may decrease the services, mostly due to high variable costs. relevance of distance, be it geographical, linguistic or regulatory, and that they also facilitate searches for Figure C.2 breaks the costs of trading goods and products, introduce mechanisms to verify quality and services down into five components: transport reputation, and simplify cross-border transactions. costs, logistics costs, the cost of crossing borders, information and transaction costs, and trade policy To see how international trade costs have fallen over barriers. The first three categories capture the cost time, Figure C.1 plots the trend for three directions of delivering goods from suppliers to customers. They of trade flows between 1996 and 2014. The costs include the costs of transport, cargo loading, storage, are calculated as a ratio between international and port services and the costs of complying with customs domestic trade. A decline in this ratio means that procedures. Information and transaction costs international trade grew faster than domestic trade, include obstacles that firms have to overcome in order which is an indication that the world has become to search for trading partners, acquiring information more globalized and that obstacles to international about tastes, regulations and technical requirements, trade have declined. On average this decline was and enforcing contracts. Acquiring information about around 15 per cent between 1996 and 2014. The product standards in a foreign country, distribution trend was similar for trade among developed (“North- channels and customers' preferences is costly, and Figure C.1: Overall trade costs, 1996-2014 100 95 90 85 80 75 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 North-North North-South South-South Source: World Bank-ESCAP database on International trade costs. Notes: Only those country pairs for which data were consistently available for the years 1996-2014 have been included, i.e. 107 countries that were classified as developed (high-income) and developing (middle-/low-income) based on the World Bank classification for the year 2006, which is the midpoint of the time series. Each time series is standardized to 100 at the beginning of the sample period. 64 THE FUTURE OF WORLD TRADE: HOW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ARE TRANSFORMING GLOBAL COMMERCE Figure C.2: Trade costs breakdown, based on data from 2014 (per cent) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Goods Services C. HE ECONOMICS OF HOW IMPACT TRADE IMPACT TECHNOLOGIES DIGITAL T Transport costs Logistics costs Border costs Information and transaction costs Trade policy barriers Other costs Source: WTO calculations using World Input-Output Database (WIOD) data and methodology from Chen and Novy (2011). Notes: The figure shows to what extent various determinants of trade costs explain the cross-country variance in trade costs. The determinants of transport costs taken into account are the effective transportation distance between countries, as constructed by Egger et al. (2018), whether or not a country is landlocked, and whether countries have a common border. Logistics costs are proxied by the Logistics Performance Index and the Liner Shipping Connectivity index. Border costs are proxied by the lead time to export. The determinants of trade policy barriers taken into account are whether countries are part of a free trade agreement, whether they are members of the European Union, and exchange rates. The determinants of information and transaction costs taken into account are whether there is a common ethnic language, a common colonizer, whether different countries were previously the same country or one was previously a colony of the other, the bilateral stock of migrants, the depth of credit information index, and the enforcing contracts indicator. Other costs are the part of the total costs variation that remains unexplained by our variables. these costs increase with cultural and linguistic measures, these figures are likely to underestimate distance. Furthermore, transaction costs are high for the importance of all border costs. cross-border trade because of different institutional frameworks and the need for cross-border financial Information and transaction costs in goods flows transactions and currency conversions. The last play the second most important role after transport category includes policy measures that make access costs.3 In services, information and transaction costs to the domestic market relatively more difficult for are the most important trade barriers, accounting for foreign firms. These are tariffs, but also non-tariff 30 per cent of the total trade costs variation. Finally, barriers, such as technical regulations, product trade policy barriers also matter much more for standards or licensing. services flows, where they account for 15 per cent, as opposed to goods flows where they account for Transport costs account for the largest share of 11 per cent. cross-country variation in overall trade costs; that is, 37 per cent for goods flows and 17 per cent for The remaining unexplained component (“Other services flows.1 Logistics costs are equally important costs”) reflects trade barriers that are not captured by for the trade of goods and services, accounting for the variables introduced in the estimation. These may 11 per cent of overall trade costs.2 The costs of include, for instance, taste differences that are not crossing a border that stem from time delays account explained by the variables used to proxy for cultural for between 5 and 6 per cent of overall trade costs. and linguistic differences. It would also include However, since there are other administrative costs costs of customs and regulatory compliance that go related to customs compliance for which we lack beyond time delays at the border, and those that are 65 not affected by trade agreements. The unexplained trans-shipment that lengthens shipping time is component is considerably higher for trade costs in associated with a 40 per cent lower bilateral export services than for trade costs in goods, which may value. also reflect poorer measures for policy barriers in trade in services. For a detailed exposition of the (i) Artificial intelligence and autonomous methodology used to estimate the decomposition, driving reduce transport costs see Appendix C.1. Many recent technological advances have had a In conclusion, trade costs have declined in both significant impact on transportation and logistics developed and developing countries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: Kowalski, P. (2011), “Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 121, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3vwb8g0hl-en OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 121 Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski JEL Classification: F11, F14, F16, F17 OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS The OECD Trade Policy Working Paper series is designed to make available to a wide readership selected studies by OECD staff or by outside consultants. This document has been declassified on the responsibility of the Working Party of the Trade Committee under the OECD reference number TAD/TC/WP(2010)38/FINAL. Comments on the series are welcome and should be sent to [email protected]. OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS are published on www.oecd.org/trade © OECD 2011 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: OECD Publishing, [email protected] or by fax 33 1 45 24 99 30 Abstract COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE PERFORMANCE: POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski Trade Policy Analyst, Development Division, OECD This paper builds on recent generalisations of theory and empirics of comparative advantage and establishes the relative importance of different sources of comparative advantage in explaining trade, with particular focus on policy and institutional factors. The broad policy and institutional areas posited as determinants of comparative advantage in this paper include: physical capital, human capital (distinguishing between secondary, tertiary education and average years of schooling), financial development, energy supply, business climate, labour market institutions as well as import tariff policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R
    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND TRADE – Vol.I - Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R. Hazari, Pasquale M. Sgro COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE POLICY Bharat R. Hazari Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Pasquale M. Sgro Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Keywords: absolute advantage, autarky, community indifference curve, comparative advantage, consumer surplus, domestic market failure, dual markets, exports, first-best, factor endowments, free trade, import substitution, infant industry, Heckscher-Ohlin, imports, manufacturers, non-tariff barriers, optimal tariff, pattern of trade, producer surplus, production possibility curve, protection, quotas, Ricardo, second-best, tariffs, technological differences, transformation surface, tariff revenue. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Comparative Advantage 2.1. The Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage 2.2. The Heckscher-Ohlin Theory of Comparative Advantage 3. Free Trade 4. Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers 5. International Trade Policy Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary The theory of comparative advantage suggests that voluntary trade between nations takes place because it is mutually beneficial, and that the pattern of trade is determined by differences in comparative advantage. Despite the undeniable gains free trade produces, throughout history countries have applied both tariff and non-tariff barriers to restrict trade. The concepts of consumer and producer surplus are often used to measure both the welfare benefits of free trade and the welfare costs of imposing tariffs. Both economicUNESCO and non-economic reasons have – been EOLSS used justify the restriction of trade. 1. IntroductionSAMPLE CHAPTERS Nations trade with each other because they consider it to be mutually beneficial. The gains occur in at least two ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Deglobalization: an Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors
    Preventing Deglobalization: An Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION Contributing Authors The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. Copyright © 2016 by the United States Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form—print, electronic, or otherwise—without the express written permission of the publisher. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 Part I: Risks of Balkanizing the ICT Industry Through Law and Regulation ........................................................................................ 11 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 11 B. China ........................................................................................................... 14 1. Chinese Industrial Policy and the ICT Sector .................................. 14 a) “Informatizing” China’s Economy and Society: Early Efforts ...... 15 b) Bolstering Domestic ICT Capabilities in the 12th Five-Year Period and Beyond ................................................. 16 (1) 12th Five-Year
    [Show full text]
  • Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability?
    3 Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability? The evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive that the massive increase in world competition— a consequence of broadening trade flows—has fostered markedly higher standards of liv- ing . this surge in competitive trade has clearly owed, in large part, to significant advances in technological innovation. —Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, “Technology and Trade,” remarks before the Dallas Ambassadors Forum, Dallas, Texas (16 April 1999) [T]he globalization system . is not static, but a dynamic ongoing process: globalization involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before—in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation- states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before. —Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (1999) Why Trade? People trade because they want different things, have different skills, and earn different amounts of money. With individuals represented by their national aggregates, countries trade for the same reasons. Countries differ from one another in terms of resources and the techniques firms use to produce goods and services. People value goods and services differently, depending on their income and tastes. Investors in financial assets have different preferences for risk, return, and diversification. These differ- 29 Institute for International Economics | http://www.iie.com ences are reflected across countries as differences in costs of production, prices for products and services, and rates of return on and “exposures”1 to financial assets. Because costs, prices, and returns differ across countries, it makes sense for a country to trade some of what it produces most cheaply and holds less dear to people who want it more and for whom production is costly or even impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries
    sustainability Article Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries Tamás Mizik * , Ákos Szerletics and Attila Jámbor Department of Agribusiness, Corvinus University of Budapest, F˝ovám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] (Á.S.); [email protected] (A.J.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020 Abstract: Agri-food trade competitiveness analyses are relatively understudied in the empirical literature with many countries/regions missing. The novelty of this paper to analyze the agri-food export competitiveness patterns of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), thereby aiming to fill this gap in the literature. Our research questions include which countries and products are competitive in the ASEAN region in agri-food trade; whether raw materials or processed products are more competitive; whether regional or global agri-food trade is more competitive and how persistent competitiveness is in the long run. The paper is based on ASEAN–ASEAN and ASEAN–world agri-food trade flows from 2010 to 2018, thereby global and regional competitiveness patterns have become visible. Results suggest that Myanmar (18.88), Laos (8.21) and the Philippines (5.36) have the highest levels of agri-food trade competitiveness in the world market, while in regional markets, Laos (17.17), Cambodia (15.46) and Myanmar (12.39) were the most competitive. Both raw materials, as well as processed products, are generally competitive, and regional trade, in general, was more competitive than global trade for the majority of the countries. However, results suggest a generally decreasing trend in keeping these competitive positions, which is also supported by the duration tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE
    Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE We have learned enough about production that we can now begin our explanation of trade. TRADE - Assumptions Let’s assume there are two products (Food and computers). There are two countries: Europe, South America. TRADE the main question: To be self-sufficient and produce everything we need OR To cooperate with the other country & TRADE TRADE Trade is beneficial if one can only produce food while the other can only produce computer. Trade is good if Europe is better in one while South America is better in the other. – They should SPECIALIZE and trade. SomeSome points points on on South South America’s America's PPF PPC SomeSome points points on on Europe’s Europe's PPF PPC Computers Food Computers Food 200 0 400 0 100 200 200 100 0 400 0 200 TRADE But what happens if one is much better in producing both computers and food? A different example SomeSome points points on on South South America'sAmerica’s PPC PPF SomeSome pointspoints on Europe’sEurope's PPCPPF Computers Food Computers Food 250 0 200 0 125 125 100 50 0 250 0 100 They can still benefit from trade as long as opportunity costs are different. Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? Let’s look at the extremes: 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? If you pick to produce 100 units of food … you give up producing 200 computers. 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs 100 vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Revealed Comparative Advantage: a Study of India and ASEAN Economies
    Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Delhi LBSIM Working Paper Series LBSIM/WP/2020/18 Revealed Comparative Advantage: A Study of India and ASEAN economies Rashmi Ahuja August,2020 LBSIM Working Papers indicate research in progress by the author(s) and are brought out to elicit ideas, comments, insights and to encourage debate. The views expressed in LBSIM Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the LBSIM nor its Board of Governors. WP/August2020/18 LBSIM Working Paper Research Cell Revealed Comparative Advantage: A Study of India and ASEAN economies Rashmi Ahuja Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management Dwarka , Delhi Abstract The trade relations between India and ASEAN economies have gained more attention among academicians and researchers especially after India initiated ‘Look East Policy’ in 1991. It gained even more importance after its upgraded version of ‘Act East policy’ and also the recent withdrawal of India from Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This paper aims to explore India’s comparative advantage with that of nine ASEAN economies in different product groups at SITC one-digit level classification for the period 2009-2018. This empirical analysis uses Balassa (1965) measure of Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA). Our findings suggest that India has maintained stable comparative advantage in two primary product group and two labour-intensive product groups while Indonesia has maintained comparative advantage in highest number of product groups among all ASEAN economies over the considered period of study. Further, we identified that India could leverage its trade potential in two product groups i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 Comparative Advantage Measurement in ASEAN's Ten
    BISE: Jurnal Pendidikan Bisnis dan Ekonomi https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/bise p-ISSN 2548-8961 | e-ISSN 2548-7175 | Volume 4 Nomor 1 (2018) Ó Program Studi Pendidikan Ekonomi, FKIP Universitas Sebelas Maret Comparative Advantage Measurement in ASEAN’s Ten Leading Export Commodities: A Case Study of ASEAN-5 Estira Woro Astrini1, Nurul Azizah Az zakiyyah2 1 Magister Science of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University 2 Non Functional Budget State Analys Setjen DPR RI Article Info Abstract DOI: This paper analyzed ASEAN-5’s comparative advantage of their best http://dx.doi.org/10.20 ten products using “products mapping” as now we faced ASEAN 961/bise.v4i1.17560 Economic Community (AEC). Its a need to know which commodities are those countries in comparative advantage and as a net exporter. JEL Classification: Using data retrieved from UN COMTRADE accessed from F13, Q56 INTRACEN website, we used information of best ten ASEAN’s leading export commodities which was under 2 digits HS classsification. For Keyword: ASEAN, analysis in this paper, we derived those products into 4 digits HS International Trade, classification, so then we were not only use 10 commodities but 320 TBI, Product Mapping commodities. Comparative advantage measurement that we used were Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantage (RSCA), as for know if 1 this paper is a the countries were net-importer or net-exporter we used Trade Balance personal idea of the Index (TBI). Lastly, we combined those two indexes of comparative authors without advantage to draw each country’s products mapping. From the analysis, representing the we got the result that, Indonesia’s exported commodities (net-exporter) university or and comparative advantage mostly are from animal or vegetable fats organization and oil, Malaysia’s mostly are from rubber and articles thereof, Singapore and Thailand’s mostly from organic chemicals, and Philipines’s mostly from electrical and electrical equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers: Free Trade Or Protectionism?
    www.hoddereducation.co.uk/economicreview Volume 36, Number 1, September 2018 Answers Free trade or protectionism? Jon Guest This resource provides answers to the questions set in the article on trade, on pp. 12–15 of the September 2018 issue of ECONOMIC REVIEW. Question 1 Using a simple numerical example, explain the difference between absolute and comparative advantage. The following example illustrates two countries that can use their resources to produce either whisky or motorbikes. The numbers in the table illustrate the number of motorbikes and bottles of whisky they can produce a day. Motorbikes Whisky Country A 9 36 Country B 6 12 Country A has an absolute advantage over Country B in the production of both goods. It can produce both more motorbikes and whisky per day than Country B. Comparative advantage depends on opportunity costs. The country with the lowest opportunity cost of producing a good has a comparative advantage in producing that good. Assuming the opportunity costs of using resources remain constant, the table below illustrates the opportunity cost of producing either one motorcycle or one bottle of whisky for each country. Opportunity cost of Opportunity cost of producing one motorcycle producing one bottle of whisky Country A Four bottles of whisky A quarter of a motorcycle Country B Two bottles of whisky Half a motorcycle Country B has a comparative advantage in producing motorbikes, i.e. it has a lower opportunity cost than Country A. It forgoes two bottles of whisky by using its resources to produce one motorbike whereas Country A forgoes four bottles.
    [Show full text]
  • Oecd Development Centre
    OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE Working Paper No. 16 (Formerly Technical Paper No. 16) COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE: THEORY AND APPLICATION TO DEVELOPING COUNTRY AGRICULTURE by Ian Goldin Research programme on: Changing Comparative Advantage in Food and Agriculture June 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY . 9 PREFACE . 11 INTRODUCTION . 13 PART ONE . 14 COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE: THE THEORY . 14 The Theory of Comparative Advantage . 14 Testing the theory . 15 The Theory and Agriculture . 16 PART TWO . 19 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: THE PRACTICE . 19 Costs and Prices . 19 Land, Labour and Capital . 20 Joint Products . 22 Cost Studies . 22 Engineering Cost Studies . 23 Revealed Comparative Advantage . 25 Trade Liberalisation Simulations . 26 Domestic Resource Cost Analysis . 29 PART THREE . 32 COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY AGRICULTURE . 32 Comparative Advantage and Economic Growth . 32 Conclusion . 33 NOTES . 35 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES . 36 7 SUMMARY This paper investigates the application of the principle of comparative advantage to policy analysis and policy formulation. It is concerned with both the theory and the measurement of comparative advantage. Despite its central role in economics, the theory is found to be at an impasse, with its usefulness confined mainly to the illustration of economic principles which in practice are not borne out by the evidence. The considerable methodological problems associated with the measurement of comparative advantage are highlighted in the paper. Attempts to derive indicators of comparative advantage, such as those associated with "revealed comparative advantage", "direct resource cost", "production cost" and "trade liberalisation" studies are reviewed. These methods are enlightening, but are unable to provide general perspectives which allow an analysis of dynamic comparative advantage.
    [Show full text]
  • World Trade Organization Economic Research and Statistics Division
    Staff Working Paper ERSD-2009-07 September 2009 World Trade Organization Economic Research and Statistics Division ENDOWMENTS, POWER, AND DEMOCRACY: POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MULTILATERAL COMMITMENTS ON TRADE IN SERVICES Martin ROY: WTO Manuscript date: September 2009 Disclaimer: This is a working paper, and hence it represents research in progress. This paper represents the opinions of the author, and is the product of professional research. It is not meant to represent the position or opinions of the WTO or its Members, nor the official position of any staff members. Any errors are the fault of the author. Copies of working papers can be requested from the divisional secretariat by writing to: Economic Research and Statistics Division, World Trade Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154, CH 1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland. Please request papers by number and title. i ENDOWMENTS, POWER, AND DEMOCRACY: POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MULTILATERAL COMMITMENTS ON TRADE IN SERVICES By Martin ROY1 Abstract In spite of their growing importance in international trade as well as in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, services have only attracted limited attention from researchers interested in determinants of trade policies and commitments. This paper draws from different approaches within the field of international political economy to try to explain why governments undertook different levels of market access commitments under the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The argument, which is supported by empirical analysis, suggests that democracy, relative power, relative endowments, and the WTO accessions process have a significant impact on multilateral commitments on trade in services. JEL Classification: F5, F13, L8, D72 Keywords: trade in services, GATS, democracy, relative power, endowments, WTO accessions, determinants of cooperation, determinants of international commitments, international negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • International Economics Questions Part I Question D
    International Economics questions Part I A nation's ability to produce a product more efficiently than another country is referred to as a. globalization. b. foreign trade. c. interdependence. d. absolute advantage. Question A nation's ability to produce a product more efficiently than another country is referred to as a. globalization. b. foreign trade. c. interdependence. d. absolute advantage. Answer Nebraska specializes in the production of corn and Maine specializes in the production of lobsters, therefore the two states could engage in trade that benefits both parties. This law of economics is known as a. supply and demand. b. parallel consumption. c. comparative advantage. d. relative distribution. Question Nebraska specializes in the production of corn and Maine specializes in the production of lobsters, therefore the two states could engage in trade that benefits both parties. This law of economics is known as a. supply and demand. b. parallel consumption. c. comparative advantage. d. relative distribution. Answer Country X and Country Y are the same size in terms of population, area, and capital stock. If both countries devote all of their efforts to producing widgets, Country X can produce 10 million widgets, while Country Y can produce 5 million. Based on the information given, Country X has a. a monopoly on the production of widgets. b. an absolute advantage in producing widgets. c. a comparative advantage in producing widgets. d. a lower opportunity cost in the production of widgets. Question Country X and Country Y are the same size in terms of population, area, and capital stock. If both countries devote all of their efforts to producing widgets, Country X can produce 10 million widgets, while Country Y can produce 5 million.
    [Show full text]