Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. In an attempt to disentangle the impact of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures on trade patterns, we estimate a Heckman selection model on the HS4 disaggregated level of trade. We find that aggregated SPS measures constitute barriers to agricultural and food trade consistently to all exporters. But conditional on market entry, trade flows are positively affected by SPS measures. Additionally, we find that SPS measures related to conformity assessment hamper market entry and trade flows, while SPS measures related to product characteristics pose an entry barrier but increase bilateral trade flows conditional on meeting the standard. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor mayJEL Code: C23, F14, Q17.

No abstract

Governments are increasingly entering FTAs and mega-regionals to secure market access for their firms. Utilization rates are used to monitor whether firms are using these FTAs. This paper is part of a recent stream of studies to dash out enduring myths that preferences are not used when preferential MFN rates are low or for unknown or vague reasons. Contrary to this sort of conventional wisdom this study advocates that low utilization rate is a valuable and unequivocal sign that reform of rules of origin and related administrative procedures is needed to make the FTA attractive and meaningful to the private sector. By using a "repeated offender" methodology this paper identifies a series of product specific rules of origin (PSROs) causing low utilization rates. Such PSROs are the candidate for reforms towards more lenient requirements that are commercially viable for firms.

Mega-regional trade deals require economies to forge appropriate policy responses to navigate implementation challenges and unlock potential opportunities. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which entered into force on 1 January 2022, is no exception. 1 Partnering 10 Southeast Asian nations with Australia, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand, RCEP is the most recent plurilateral initiative to foster regional cooperation and integration in Asia and the Pacific. 2 As a strong commitment to open, transparent, and inclusive trade and investment regimes, the agreement is expected to strengthen the region's manufacturing supply chains, raise productivity, and increase wages and employment, with world income gains estimated at $263 billion (Park, Petri, and Plummer 2021).At the same time, compared to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and other agreements in Asia and the Pacific, RCEP does not provide strong disciplines in new areas and has been qualified as a "shallow" agreement.

This paper reviews the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel Report Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit of April 2019. It constitutes the first attempt to disentangle the legal and political aspects related to the invoked essential security interests from the economic considerations underlying the measures imposed on the transit through Russia of goods exported from Ukraine to the Republic of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. One the one hand, the panel's interpretation of Article XXI of the GATT denies Members unilateral determination over security exceptions. It further enables a pathway for future WTO panels to review possible abuses of security exceptions – a growing concern due to the rising complexity of transnational economic relations. On the other hand, our economic analysis suggests a stricter assessment of Russia's transit restrictions was necessary. In particular, it argues that the panel adopted a circular assessment when considering the plausibility of whether Russia implemented its measures for the protection of its essential security interests at a time of emergency in international relations. Ultimately, although the panel's focus on finding a diplomatic and legal path forward failed economic scrutiny a legal assessment argues that the panel's findings fit the legal design of Article XXI:b of the GATT.