Gravity, Bilateral Agreements, and Trade Diversion in the Americas

Krishna (1998) shows that a bilateral agreement between two countries render a multilateral agreement less attractive if the bilateral agreement is trade diverting. This paper combines Krishna’s model with the empirical approach of Anderson and vaGravity models, asymmetric tariffs, trade diversion

Specialization and Diverging Manufacturing Structures: The Aftermath of Trade Policy Reforms in Developing Countries

Trade barriers have been declining around the world over the last five decades. Countries reduced their tariffs unilaterally as well as concertedly in the framework of regional integration agreements. As a consequence, trade flows among economies have substantially intensified. According to economic theory, this should have had a significant impact on the countries’ specialization patterns. However, to our knowledge, there is no direct robust econometric evidence on the effect of trade policy on the overall degree of countries’ specialization. This paper aims at filling this gap in the literature. We focus on ten Latin American countries members of the LAIA (Latin American Integration Association) over the period 1985-1998. These countries are natural case studies because in the last two decades they implemented road and comprehensive trade liberalization programs, both generally and preferentially, starting from relatively high tariff protection levels. Our econometric results suggest that reducing own MFN tariffs is associated with increasing manufacturing production specialization. Furthermore, we find that preferential trade liberalization and differences in the degree of unilateral openness have resulted in increased dissimilarities in manufacturing production structures across countries. These results are robust to the specialization measure being used, the correction for groupwise heteroscedasticity, cross-sectional correlation, serial correlation and endogeneity biases, and the inclusion of indicators to account for the real exchange misalignment prevailing in the region during the period under examination.Specialization, Trade Policy, Latin America

El patrón comercial a finales del siglo XIX: Un análisis comparativo

Nuevos enfoques en la historia económica de España y de América Latina. Homenaje a Robert W. Fogel y Douglas C. North, Premios Nobel de Economía 1993Editada en la Universidad Carlos IIIEn este ensayo se contrasta para una muestra de 18 países hacia 1913 una versión estática de la teoría de Heckscher-Ohlin, en la formulación de Vanek. La conclusión alcanzada es que si bien el modelo de H-O con competencia perfecta no resulta plenamente explicativo para la segunda posguerra mundial, es muy adecuado, sin embargo, para los años finales del siglo XIX y primeros del siglo XX.This paper will focus on the question: ¿does the Heckscher-Ohlin theory adequately account for the major aspects of the trade pattern observed prior to WWI, or are there other influences that mattered? I conclude that although the perfect competition H-O model does not do all that well for the post-world War II period, it is perfectly adequate for the late nineteenth century, the period which motivated Eli F. Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin in the first place.Publicad

Regional Integration in the Americas: State of Play, Lessons, and Ways Forward

The Americas have been a key driver of regional trade agreements (RTAs) since the 1990s. This study considers the effect of these agreements on trade liberalization, and the lessons that this offers for other parts of the world, notably Asia. It finds broad geographical coverage of RTAs in the Americas, and evidence that these agreements have broadened and deepened liberalization. It stresses the importance of looking beyond tariffs on goods, to consider liberalization of services and removal of non-tariff barriers, both for academics assessing the true extent of liberalization, and for policymakers looking to ensure well-functioning RTAs. It suggests that RTAs can encourage broader liberalization in Asia, but some sectors will be resistant to liberalization. Moreover, efforts must be made to harmonize the provisions of RTAs, to avoid costly multiplication of rules and to ensure a web of bilateral deals does not undermine multilateral trade.regional trade agreements; trade liberalization; liberalization of services; non-tariff barriers; multilateral trade agreements; bilateral trade agreements

Does regionalism affect trade liberalization toward non-members ?

This paper examines the effect of regionalism on unilateral trade liberalization using industry-level data on applied most-favored nation tariffs and bilateral preferences for ten Latin American countries from 1990 to 2001. The findings show that preferential tariff reduction in a given sector leads to a reduction in the external (most-favored nation) tariff in that sector. External liberalization is greater if preferences are granted to important suppliers. However, these"complementarity effects"of preferential liberalization on external liberalization do not arise in customs unions. Overall, the results suggest that concerns about a negative effect of preferential liberalization on external trade liberalization are unfounded.Free Trade,Trade Policy,International Trade and Trade Rules,Trade and Regional Integration,Trade Law

Does Regionalism Affect Trade Liberalization Towards Non-Members?

We examine the effect of regionalism on unilateral trade liberalization using industry-level data on applied MFN tariffs and bilateral preferences for ten Latin American countries from 1990 to 2001. We find that preferential tariff reduction in a given sector leads to a reduction in the external (MFN) tariff in that sector. External liberalization is greater if preferences are granted to important suppliers. However, these "complementarity effects" of preferential liberalization on external liberalization do not arise in customs unions. Overall, our results suggest that concerns about a negative effect of preferential liberalization on external trade liberalization are unfounded.regionalism, external tariffs, trade liberalization

Complements or Substitutes? Preferential and Multilateral Trade Liberalization at the Sectoral Level

This paper explores the relationship between preferential and multilateral trade liberalization at the sectoral level using a unique dataset that includes data on most favored nation (MFN) and bilateral preferential tariffs at the 4-digit ISIC level for 11 Latin American countries over the period 1985–2005. We find evidence of heterogeneity across sectors. While in some industries, complementary effects between both kinds of trade liberalization are observed, in others no significant links are detected and—in a few cases—even substitutability seems to prevail. Variation across sectors appears to be systematically related to both import demand elasticities and countries’ sectoral comparative advantages.Trade liberalization; regionalism; Latin America

The Rise and Fall of World Trade, 1870-1939

Measured by the ratio of trade to output, the period 1870 1913 marked the birth of the first era of trade globalization and the period 1914 39 its death. What caused the boom and bust? We use an augmented gravity model to examine the gold standard, tariffs, and transport costs as determinants of trade. Until 1913 the rise of the gold standard and the fall in transport costs were the main trade-creating forces. As of 1929 the reversal was driven by higher transport costs. In the 1930s, the final collapse of the gold standard drove trade volumes even lower.

Is the Washington Consensus Dead? Growth, Openness, and the Great Liberalization, 1970s-2000s

According to the Washington Consensus, developing countries? growth would benefit from a reduction in tariffs and other barriers to trade. But a backlash against this view now suggests that trade policies have little or no impact on growth. If "getting policies right" is wrong or infeasible, this leaves only the more tenuous objective of "getting institutions right" (Easterly 2005, Rodrik 2006). However, the empirical basis for judging recent trade reforms is weak. Econometrics are mostly ad hoc; results are typically not judged against models; trade policies are poorly measured (or not measured at all, as when trade volumes are spuriously used); and the most influential studies in the literature are based on pre-1990 experience (which predates the "Great Liberalization" in developing countries which followed the GATT Uruguay Round). We address all of these concerns -- by using a model-based analysis which highlights tariffs on capital and intermediate goods; by compiling new disaggregated tariff measures to empirically test the model; and by employing a treatment-and-control empirical analysis of pre- versus post-1990 performance of liberalizing and nonliberalizing countries. We find evidence that a specific treatment, liberalizing tariffs on imported capital and intermediate goods, did lead to faster GDP growth, and by a margin consistent with theory (about 1 percentage point per annum). Endogeneity problems are considered and other observations are consistent with the proposed mechanism: changes to other tariffs, e.g. on consumption goods, though collinear with general tariffs reforms, are more weakly correlated with growth outcomes; and the treatment and control groups display different behavior of investment prices and quantities, and capital flows.