Services, economic development and the next round of negotiations on services

Abstract

World trade in services amounted to $2170 billion in 1997, of which 40 per cent was cross-border consumption. Though service trade liberalization is hard to model, sectoral and general equilibrium analyses indicate the scope for major welfare gains. Reforms in services will be driven by domestic agendas, but they can be supported and complemented by commitments to GATS disciplines. Developing country commitments in the GATS, as well as commitments in their areas of interest, are limited. Incentives are needed in the next WTO trade round to encourage commitment to a more balanced and comprehensive coverage. The trade inhibiting eect of domestic regulation requires particular attention.

Service Trade Liberalization as a Handmaiden of Competitiveness in Manufacturing: An Industrialized or Developing Country Issue?

“…Motivation from including the service sector in ERP estimates comes from various sources. First, the services are the growing sector everywhere but simultaneously are subject to strong domestic 13 See the survey of the literature by Hoekman (2006).…”

Hubs of Governance: Path Dependence and Higher-Order Effects of Preferential Trade Agreement Formation

“…This positive-list approach is also used in many PTAs that are notified to the WTO under GATS Article V. Often the language closely resembles that of the GATS itself 2 . Just like in the GATS, PTAs often have separate chapters for financial and telecommunications services that take their cues from the respective sectoral agreements in the WTO (Hoekman and Kostecki 2010, 347–50).…”

“…Services liberalization only came onto the agenda of trade negotiations in the 1980s, when the United States was instrumental in its inclusion in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, following intense lobbying (Hoekman and Kostecki 2010, 335) by the private sector and a drawn-out process of identifying and formulating trade policy positions on this new issue (Drake and Nicolaïdis 1992). During the Uruguay Round negotiations, the United States proposed the most liberal institutional design for services liberalization: MFN status was to apply to all signatories and NT a general binding principle for all sectors across all modes of supply, subject to specific exemptions—a negative-list approach, though it was not yet referred to as such at the time.…”

Trade openness and foreign direct investment in Africa

“…It is important to note that in Africa in the last 10 years, trade in services has increased substantially, despite the fact that trade in Africa has been marginalised in the last two decades 7 . Currently, trade in services makes up a quarter of all cross-border trade and a significant portion of all sales by multinational firms (Hoekman & Mattoo, 2000). Although the increase in trade in the services sector is a positive development, barriers to trade in the services sector remain an obstacle in the promotion of FDI.…”