GSTP tariff reduction and its effects on south-south trade in manufactures

Linnemann, Hans; Verbruggen, H.

doi:10.1016/0305-750x(91)90193-l

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From our results, the integration with the G‐77 raise doubts as to whether in fact this trade integration could ‘benefit equitably all participants’ (UNCTAD, 2004c). The results of this paper are in line with those that simulated GSTP agreements using partial equilibrium models, which showed that trade gains would be concentrated in the Asian region (Erzan et al, 1988; Linnemann & Verbruggen, 1991). However, the paper innovates by analysing trade integration within the G‐77, the founding group of the GSTP, and by using the GTAP model, which allows for the visualisation of the chaining effects of tariff reductions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Erzan et al (1988) and Linnemann and Verbruggen (1991), when analysing interregional agreements within the scope of the GSTP by means of partial equilibrium models, showed an expansion of South–South trade with trade gains concentrated in the Asian region. The present work intends to contribute to the literature through the current analysis of the impacts of greater trade integration in the G‐77, the founding group of the GSTP, using the GTAP, which, being a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model, considers the effects of linkages in the analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

South–South trade: An analysis of trade integration in the G‐77

Afonso

Perobelli

Bastos

2022

J of Intl Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the economic impacts of greater trade integration in the Group of 77 (G‐77) through the GTAP model. The analyses are based on reductions in import tariffs on agricultural and industrial products, considering scenarios with and without the China participation. The economic impacts tend to strengthen production and trade in industrial sectors in already industrialised regions and agriculture in regions more dependent on this sector—pattern reinforced with China's presence. China's trade also leads to a drop in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in some G‐77 countries, with these losses outweigh welfare gains mainly in some least developed countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

South–South trade: An analysis of trade integration in the G‐77

Afonso

Perobelli

Bastos

2022

J of Intl Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using the traditional gravity model and its variants, previous studies found significant impacts of tariffs and non-tariff measures of trade restriction on cross-border trade (Hoekman & Nicita, 2011;Linnemann & Verbruggen, 1991), and showed that international technological collaborations depended on transport and communication costs as well as other factors (Montobbio & Sterzi, 2013). McCallum (1995) and Wei (1996) might be credited for popularization of a gravity-type measure of aggregate trade barriers.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 96%

Domestic Market Integration and Regional Economic Growth—China’s Recent Experience from 1995–2011

2015

World Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With respect to commercial policy frictions, the literature on the effects of tariffs and trade agreements on trade is not as large as one would expect. Linnemann and Verbruggen [1991], Tamirisa [1999], Di Mauro [2000], and Estevadeordal and Robertson [2002] are some of the few examples that explicitly incorporate direct tariff measures into a gravity model. The rest of the literature has mostly explored the effects of preferential trade agreements on trade via the inclusion of dummy variables for trade agreements.…”

Section: Modeling Trade With Frictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise and Fall of World Trade, 1870-1939

Estevadeordal

Frantz²,

Taylor

2003

The Quarterly Journal of Economics

286

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ratio of world trade to output was a mere 2% in 1800, but it then rose to 10% in 1870 to 17% in 1900 and 21% in 1913. It then fell back to 14% in 1929 and only 9% in 1938. The period 1870-1913 thus marks the birth of the first great era of trade globalization, the period 1914-39 its death. What caused the trade boom and bust? The textbook interpretations offer a variety of narratives, but few precise answers. We use an augmented gravity model of trade to examine the gold standard, tariffs, and transport costs as determinants of trade. In the nineteenth century the gold standard was much more important than tariff policy, and just as important as transport costs as a trade-creating force. In the 1920s, the slowdown in trade was driven by a rise in transport costs, though trade barriers other than tariffs might have been important. In the 1930s, the final collapse of the gold standard, persistently high transport costs, and the expansion of other barriers drove trade volumes even lower.

show abstract

GSTP tariff reduction and its effects on south-south trade in manufactures

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

South–South trade: An analysis of trade integration in the G‐77

South–South trade: An analysis of trade integration in the G‐77

Domestic Market Integration and Regional Economic Growth—China’s Recent Experience from 1995–2011

The Rise and Fall of World Trade, 1870-1939

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About