Environmental and Health Protections, or New Protectionism? Determinants of SPS Notifications by WTO Members

Aisbett, Emma; Pearson, Lee M.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2196193

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, countries with sufficient market power, or even small countries (mainly non-WTO members), who in certain products face lower export supply elasticities (inelastic supply), will charge higher tariffs and also be driven to force a more protectionist approach by imposing NTMs. Aisbett and Pearson (2012) establish the substitutability correlation between SPS measures and tariffs, by suggesting that countries manipulate their environmental and health standards for protectionist purposes. The authors claim that there is a race to the bottom, meaning that tariff liberalization puts downward pressure on standards in countries which already have low standards (namely developing countries) and upward pressure on countries with high-standards (developed countries).…”

Section: Ntms Tariffs and Trade In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 98%

Tariffs and Non-Tariff Measures: Substitutes or Complements. A Cross-Country Analysis

Ronen

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alongside the global tariff liberalization, a growing body of evidence demonstrates the rise in the use of non-tariff measures (NTMs), which suggests a substitution effect between these two import policy instruments. Yet, detailed economic data reveals that in countries with lower tariff rates (developed countries), the use of NTMs is significantly lower compared to developing countries, which implies a possible complementary effect between tariffs and NTMs across nations. Using a dataset of Kee, Nicita and Olarreaga (2009) on ad valorem tariff equivalents of NTMs, at a very disaggregated product level, this paper explores the determinants of NTMs and their substitutability/complementarity relations with tariff barriers. While exploiting the country variation, it demonstrates the decreasing trend of substitutability between the two import policy instruments with the rise in economic development. In particular, a significant complementarity correlation exists between the two trade measures among the wealthiest nations, implying a stronger commitment to freer trade.

show abstract

Section: Ntms Tariffs and Trade In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 98%

Tariffs and Non-Tariff Measures: Substitutes or Complements. A Cross-Country Analysis

Ronen

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides using NTMs to assure that imported products meet domestic regulatory requirements, there is a concern that governments might use them as substitutes for diminished tariff protection (Kee et al, 2009;Moore and Zanardi, 2011;Aisbett and Pearson, 2012;Beverelli, Boffa and Keck, 2014;Orefice, 2017). Concerns about substitution of tariffs by NTMs have been fuelled by the observation that in spite of tariff reductions, overall trade costs remain high, in particular for low-income countries (Novy, 2013;Arvis et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Ad Valorem Equivalents of Non-Tariff Measures

Cadot

Gourdon

Tongeren

2018

OECD Trade Policy Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Owing to their exporter-specific nature, AD measures have often led to increases in imports from third countries (which -as shown by Brenton (2001) -may also have supported the initial AD petitions), and, hence, can hardly be seen as a policy substitute for a general reduction in import protection. Adopting the methodology by Moore and Zanardi (2011), Aisbett and Pearson (2012) try to address this problem by using SPS measures notified to the WTO as a proxy for NTMs. However, their analysis reverts to the use of bound tariffs and suffers from the common shortcoming that notification information does not only include trade-restricting practices (WTO, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As indicated in Table A-1, these countries are Ecuador, Moldova, Saudia Arabia (TBT sample); Albania, Armenia, Jordan, Oman, Panama, the United Arab Emirates (SPS sample); China, Croatia, Qatar, Ukraine and Viet Nam (both samples). Following Aisbett and Pearson (2012), we exclude these countries from the sample. Columns (3) and (4) of tables 40 The only difference between the results of Table 8 and the baseline results based on the conditional logit approach is that the LPM approach yields an odds ratio less than one for the whole sample in the TBT regressions of columns (1) and (2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade Policy Substitution: Theory and Evidence from Specific Trade Concerns

Beverelli,

Boffa,

Keck

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Terms of use: Documents in Manuscript date: 29 October 2014Disclaimer: This is a working paper, and hence it represents research in progress. The opinions expressed in this paper should be attributed to its authors. They are not meant to represent the positions or opinions of the WTO and its Members and are without prejudice to Members' rights and obligations under the WTO. Any errors are attributable to the authors. Trade Policy Substitution:Theory and Evidence from Specific Trade Concerns * Cosimo BeverelliMauro Boffa Alexander Keck AbstractWe investigate to what extent the probability that a Specific Trade Concern (STC) is raised in the WTO against a Member in a given sector is affected by past reductions in applied tariffs. Employing an identification strategy based on 'new measures', we find evidence of a substitution of non-tariff measures for tariffs both in the sample of TBT and in the sample of SPS concerns. While in the SPS sample this result holds both among developed and developing economies, in the TBT sample such 'trade policy substitution' only occurs when the country maintaining the measure at issue is economically developed.These results are consistent with our theoretical model, which predicts policy substitution between tariffs and standards in economies where meeting such standards is relatively less costly and in sectors where meeting such standards is relatively more important from the perspective of producers.

show abstract

Environmental and Health Protections, or New Protectionism? Determinants of SPS Notifications by WTO Members

Cited by 26 publications

References 48 publications

Tariffs and Non-Tariff Measures: Substitutes or Complements. A Cross-Country Analysis

Tariffs and Non-Tariff Measures: Substitutes or Complements. A Cross-Country Analysis

Estimating Ad Valorem Equivalents of Non-Tariff Measures

Trade Policy Substitution: Theory and Evidence from Specific Trade Concerns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About