Deep trade agreements and harmonization of standards

Kawabata, Yasushi; Takarada, Yasuhiro

doi:10.1002/soej.12500

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…this need not take the form of traditional (deep) trade agreements. The trade economics literature, including recent papers that consider regulatory regimes and not just border measures, generally takes as given that cooperation will center on deep trade agreements (e.g., Grossman et al 2021;Maggi and Ossa 2021;Kawabata and Takarada 2021;Parenti and Vannoorenberghe 2022). Initiatives such as IPEF, a proposed EU Raw Materials Club (European Commission 2020, 2023) and nascent plurilateral initiatives by states to consider that national personal data protection frameworks are equivalent (Ferracane et al 2023) illustrate that trade agreements may not be needed to sustain international cooperation on regulatory policies and underlying NEOs.…”

Section: Clubsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noneconomic Objectives, Global Value Chains and International Cooperation

Hoekman,

Mavroidis,

Nelson

2023

Ital Econ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systemic conflicts increasingly affect the global value chains (GVCs) underpinning globalization by creating policy uncertainty and politicizing trade and investment decisions. Unilateral policies to attain competitiveness and noneconomic objectives (NEOs), including national security, create incentives for international cooperation to attenuate policy spillovers. Recent initiatives seeking to do so are organized around supply chain governance and need not be anchored in trade agreements. Whether such cooperation is feasible and can be designed to be effective in realizing NEOs is unclear. Plurilateral GVC-centered cooperation offers a potential path for states to pursue NEOs and reduce policy uncertainty for international business. Research offers little guidance to policymakers on the design of such cooperation. A key open question is to determine whether explicit market access commitments are necessary to sustain cooperation. Creating mechanisms for the epistemic communities that are concerned with a specific NEO or policy area to interact with stakeholders and lead firms operating international production networks can help inform the design of cooperation to attain NEOs more efficiently.

show abstract

Section: Clubsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noneconomic Objectives, Global Value Chains and International Cooperation

Hoekman,

Mavroidis,

Nelson

2023

Ital Econ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea is that economic integration at the regional or sub-systemic level will benefit and enrich all the partners, and once all the regions reach this level, a common multilateral trading system at the top level will result (ADB, 2008). There are critics who say FTAs have become stumbling blocs instead of building blocs (Kawabata and Takarada, 2021). This argument is around the extent to which FTAs have achieved their initial purpose of improving regional integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is South Asia the missing bloc in world trade? An analysis of South Asian FTAs’ compatibility with WTO rules

de Silva

2024

JITLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose South Asia is a region urgently seeking development, although it has failed in regional integration. It is the second least integrated region regarding the number of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and can thus be recognised as a missing bloc in the global multilateral system. This study aims to focus on South Asian FTAs and explores the problems of the inter-relations and compatibility between the systemic and regional trade systems. Design/methodology/approach The study proposes a framework to benchmark the compatibility of South Asian FTAs with WTO rules. Primary data from 2000 to 2020, including descriptive analyses of reports, legal text of the FTAs, official documents and factual presentations, have been collected and analysed through thematic analysis using the proposed framework. Findings The study finds that, although South Asian FTAs meet most of the WTO requirements, they are not progressing toward facilitating and promoting trade. Data from 2000 to 2020 show us that South Asian FTAs have not significantly impacted trade between themselves. The study argues that, although South Asian FTAs fulfil some benchmarks, they show only a lukewarm interest in contributing to the international trading system as building blocs. It is therefore recommended that the case of South Asian trade liberalisation must be understood contextually and be given careful and exclusive attention by the WTO. Originality/value As such, this study is the first to claim that South Asian FTAs are not fully compatible with the WTO rules. They remain a missing regional bloc in the multilateral system, rather than a building bloc or a stumbling bloc, delaying the region’s opportunity to develop as a region and within the larger system.

show abstract

“…This paper contributes to the theoretical literature that analyzes the policy linkage between tariffs and regulatory standards (Bagwell & Staiger, 2001;Ederington, 2001;Grossman et al, 2021;Kawabata & Takarada, 2021;Mei, 2021;Rebeyrol, 2022;Staiger & Sykes, 2011). Most of these studies consider exogenous tariffs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 9 Kawabata and Takarada (2021) also study endogenous tariffs and standards in an oligopolistic market. But their focus is multilateral harmonization over product standards which is different from ours. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tariffs, product standards, and national treatment at the WTO

Geng

2024

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops an oligopolistic model with consumption externalities to study (i) the policy interaction between tariffs and product standards; (ii) how such interaction may affect the welfare justification of national treatment (NT) in product standards. Absent NT, tariff reductions can lead to more discriminatory standards against foreign firms. Imposing NT eliminates discrimination but can induce higher tariffs which tend to undermine efficiency. As a result, the welfare justification of NT is stronger when tariffs are constrained. These findings suggest that the World Trade Organization's success in tariff liberalization can strengthen the case for its NT‐based approach to product standards.

show abstract

Deep trade agreements and harmonization of standards

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Noneconomic Objectives, Global Value Chains and International Cooperation

Noneconomic Objectives, Global Value Chains and International Cooperation

Is South Asia the missing bloc in world trade? An analysis of South Asian FTAs’ compatibility with WTO rules

Tariffs, product standards, and national treatment at the WTO

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About