Search

U.N. Commodity Trade (COMTRADE) statistics have major shortcomings for many analyses relating to tariffs and other trade barriers. The use of a cost-insurance-freight valuation base for these data results in an upward (sometimes severe) bias in the implied dutiable value of imports for countries that utilize free-on-board tariffs. This problem can be greatly exacerbated by the 'general' trade system procedure used to compile the U.N. statistics, as opposed to the 'special' trade practice used for the World Trade Organization Integrated Database. U.S. International Trade Commission statistics show that the combined effects of these biases can reach magnitudes that preclude the legitimate use of COMTRADE for many tariff-trade simulations or related trade negotiations. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

Using highly disaggregated firm-level customs transaction data for imports and exports in Peru over the 2000–2012 period, this paper explores the relationship between imports of intermediate inputs and firm export performance. The paper shows that greater use, variety, and quality of imported intermediate inputs is significantly correlated with higher exports, faster export growth, greater diversification of export markets, and higher quality exports (as measured by relative unit prices) at the firm level. This relationship is robust and persistent to controls for unobserved firm heterogeneity and year fixed effects. The use of imported inputs is also associated with higher productivity at the firm level. Considering the relationship between specific trade policy measures and the import performance of those exporters that are direct importers, the analysis shows that those exposed to higher tariffs and nontariff measures import less in total and exhibit lower import variety. The use of the advanced clearance procedure as the modality to clear customs for imports is favorable to the import performance of exporter-importers, in that the users of the modality import more and import a more diversified bundle of inputs than those that do not use it, even after controlling for firm size.

This paper empirically decomposes trade creation effects of regional trade agreements (RTAs) into those due to the tariff reduction effects and due to non-tariff barrier (NTB) removal by using the most disaggregated tariff-line level trade data in a large number of countries in the world. Specifically, making the full use of the fineness of our dataset, we employ the standard gravity equation and identify those effects by estimating trade creation effects of RTAs for products ineligible and eligible to RTA preferential schemes separately. Our major findings are as follows. First, for the whole samples, there are significantly positive trade creation effects due to tariff reduction while weak effects are detected for NTB removal. Second, effects of tariff reduction and NTB removal are smaller for differentiated products than for non-differentiated products. Third, trade creation effects of tariff reduction and NTB removal are substantially large in cases of trade between low-income countries while weak in cases of trade including high-income countries. Fourth, although larger tariff margins on average lead to larger trade creation effects, the relationship between tariff margins and trade creation effects is highly non-linear.

This paper analyzes the economic effects of agricultural price and merchandise trade policies around the world as of 2004 on global markets, net farm incomes, and national and regional economic welfare and poverty, using the global economy wide Linkage model, new estimates of agricultural price distortions for developing countries, and poverty elasticity's approach. It addresses two questions: to what extent are policies as of 2004 still reducing rewards from farming in developing countries and thereby adding to inequality across countries in farm household incomes? Are they depressing value added more in primary agriculture than in the rest of the economy of developing countries, and earnings of unskilled workers more than of owners of other factors of production, thereby potentially contributing to inequality and poverty within developing countries (given that farm incomes are well below non-farm incomes in most developing countries and that agriculture there is intensive in the use of unskilled labor)? Results are presented for the key countries and regions of the world and for the world as a whole. They reveal that, by moving to free markets, income inequality between countries will be reduced at least slightly, all but one-sixth of the gains to developing countries will come from agricultural policy reform, unskilled workers in developing countries the majority of whom work on farms will benefit most from reform, net farm incomes in developing countries will rise by 6 percent compared with 2 percent for non-agricultural value added, and the number of people surviving on less than US$1 a day will drop 3 percent globally.

Earnings from farming in many developing countries have been depressed by a pro-urban bias in own-country policies as well as by governments of richer countries favoring their farmers with import barriers and subsidies. Both sets of policies, which reduce national and global economic welfare and contribute to global inequality and poverty, have been undergoing reform since the 1980s. Using the linkage model of the global economy and modifications to the pre-release of version 7 of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) protection database for 2004, this paper seeks to compare the effect of those reforms to date with those that would come from removing remaining agricultural and trade policies. Two sets of results are thus presented: one showing the effects of policy reforms between 1980-84 and 2004, the other showing what the removal of remaining distortions as of 2004 could be. Both sets of results indicate improvements in the real value of agricultural output and exports, the real returns to farm land and unskilled labor, and real net farm incomes in most developing country regions despite the adverse effect on the international terms of trade for some developing countries that are net food importers or are enjoying preferential access to agricultural markets of high-income countries. Landowners in those high-income countries still offering their farmers price supports could readily afford to compensate them from the benefits of removing remaining agricultural protectionism.

The proliferation of preferential trade liberalization over the last 20 years has raised the question of whether it slows multilateral trade liberalization. Recent theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that this is the case even for unilateral preferences that developed countries provide to small and poor countries, but there is no estimate of the resulting welfare costs. This stumbling block effect can be avoided by replacing the unilateral preferences with a fixed import subsidy, which generates a Pareto improvement. More importantly, this paper presents the first estimates of the welfare cost of preferential liberalization as a stumbling block to multilateral liberalization. Recent estimates of the stumbling block effect of preferences with data for 170 countries and more than 5,000 products are used to calculate the welfare effects of the European Union, Japan, and the United States switching from unilateral preferences for least developed countries to an import subsidy scheme. In a model with no dynamic gains to trade, the switch produces an annual net welfare gain for the 170 countries that adds about 10 percent to the estimated trade liberalization gains in the Doha Round. It also generates gains for each group: the European Union, Japan, and the United States ($2,934 million), least developed countries ($520 million), and the rest of the world ($900 million).

The effective market access granted to textiles and apparel under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is estimated, taking into account the presence of rules of origin. First, estimates are provided of the effect of tariff preferences combined with rules of origin on the border prices of Mexican final goods exported to the United States (U.S.) and of U.S. intermediate goods exported to Mexico, based on eight-digit harmonized system tariff-line data. A third of the estimated rise in the border price of Mexican apparel products is found to compensate for the cost of complying with NAFTA's rules of origin, and NAFTA is found to have raised the price of U.S. intermediate goods exported to Mexico by around 12 percent, with downstream rules of origin accounting for a third of that increase. Second, simulations are used to estimate welfare gains for Mexican exporters from preferential market access under NAFTA. The presence of rules of origin is found to approximately halve these gains.