Restrictions on Trade in Professional Services

Nguyen-Hong, Duc

doi:10.2139/ssrn.270787

Cited by 61 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…See also Findlay and Sidorenko (2003). 28 Nguyen-Hong (2000) finds that nondiscriminatory regulations that restrict entry have a significant and negative effect on the price-cost margins of engineering firms, while discriminatory policies affecting foreign establishment and operation have a significant and positive effect on price-cost margins. This suggests that non-discriminatory regulations are likely to raise costs, while discriminatory policies (nationality or residency requirements) generate rents for domestic incumbents.…”

Section: Retrospective Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Services Trade and Policy

François

Hoekman

2010

Journal of Economic Literature

532

410

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 Services Trade and Policy Joseph Francois University of Linz and CEPR Bernard Hoekman World Bank and CEPR December 2009Abstract: Since the mid-1980s a substantial body of research has taken shape on trade in services. Much of this is inspired by the WTO and regional trade agreements. However, an increasing number of papers focus on the impacts of unilateral services sector liberalization. The literature touches on important linkages between trade and FDI in services and the general pattern of productivity growth and economic development. This paper surveys the literature on services trade, focusing on contributions that investigate the determinants of international trade and investment in services, the potential gains from greater trade, and efforts to cooperate to achieve such liberalization through trade agreements. There is increasing evidence that services liberalization is a major potential source of gains in economic performance, including productivity in manufacturing and the coordination of activities both between and within firms. The performance of service sectors, and thus services policies, may also be an important determinant of trade volumes, the distributional effects of trade, and overall patterns of economic growth and development. At the same time, services trade is also a source of increasing political unease about the impacts of globalization on labor markets, linked to worries about offshoring and the potential pressure this places on wages in high income countries.JEL codes: F1, F2, F5, L80

show abstract

Section: Retrospective Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Services Trade and Policy

François

Hoekman

2010

Journal of Economic Literature

532

410

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several recent studies have tried to overcome these initial limitations. In general, these studies have relied on more comprehensive qualitative databases of measures affecting trade in services and developed sophisticated weighting methods to assess the restrictiveness of different measures (see for example Nguyen-Hong, 2000). The classification and assessment of weights take into account information on types of barriers and their likely relative economic impact.…”

Section: Main Methods To Measure Services Trade Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Services Barriers and their Economic Impact

Dihel¹,

Kalinová²

2004

OECD Trade Policy Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper applies the most advanced methodologies for measuring services barriers to calculate the restrictiveness and the impact of services barriers in selected transition economies, i.e. the Baltic States, and eight South Eastern European (SEE) countries (for telecommunications and banking) and Russia (for telecommunications). Among the selected countries, the Baltic countries record the highest liberalisation scores for both telecommunications and banking services making their situation comparable to that of most developed countries. By contrast, the SEE countries have more room to improve their performance and the price level of their telecommunication services, both in fixed and cellular services by eliminating general restrictions on competition and removing barriers to foreign equity participation. With respect to banking services, the results suggest that the SEE markets are fairly contestable; policy priorities would thus appear to be broad issues of macroeconomic stability and structural reform. The telecommunications estimates put Russia in an intermediate position between the results for the Baltic States and the SEE countries. The WTO accession should encourage Russia to stabilise and consolidate its legal and regulatory framework generating significant economic gains to the whole economy.Quantitative estimates of services barriers, even if still imperfect, represent useful complements to extensive qualitative descriptions of services restrictions, as they facilitate the comparisons in time, across countries and potentially among different services sectors. In order to improve the reliability of these estimates, further work would need to address the limitations related to the data collection, the construction of indexes and the methods used for measuring the impact of services barriers restrictiveness on the performance and price levels.

show abstract

“…These Modes include: Mode 1: Cross-border supply; Mode 2: Consumption abroad; Mode 3: Commercial presence; and Mode 4: Temporary movement of natural persons. Separate indices according to modes of service delivery have already been constructed for other services sectors (Nguyen-Hong and Wells, 2003;Dihel and Shepherd, 2007;and Marouani and Munro, 2008). It has proved difficult to distinguish between regulation that applies to Mode 1 and 2, or to find any policy measures that specifically apply to these.…”

Section: Classifying Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%