Stopped TTIP? Its potential impact on the world and the role of neglected FDI

Latorre, María C.; Yonezawa, Hidemichi

doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2017.12.006

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2008) find empirical support for this mechanism using panel data and controlling for the endogeneity of FDI. Applying a CGE model, Latorre (2016), Latorre and Yonezawa (2018) and Latorre et al. (2018) find that the entry of more service multinationals leads to lower service prices.…”

Section: Service Multinationals Versus Manufacturing Multinationalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Latorre and Yonezawa (2018) analyse the potential impact of service MNEs due to lower FDI barriers under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). They do not find evidence for such crowding out effects for national firms, at least production does not contract, and obtain price reductions in services after the entry of MNEs.…”

Section: Service Multinationals Versus Manufacturing Multinationalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional mode 5 has also been suggested by Cernat and Kutlina‐Dimitrova (2014) which encompasses services traded as embodied inputs into a country's merchandise exports. As a variety within mode 5, some authors even suggest a potential mode 6 (Borchert, 2016; Latorre & Yonezawa, 2018). It would consist of provision of services by foreign multinationals supplying intermediates embodied in the host economy's exports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Foreign multinationals in service sectors: A general equilibrium analysis of Brexit

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the role of foreign multinationals in service sectors in the context of Brexit, which is assumed to induce an increase in different types of barriers: (a) FDI barriers to multinationals in services; (b) non‐tariff barriers to trade; and (c) import tariffs between the UK and the rest of the EU. We use a state‐of‐the‐art Melitz approach in manufactures with multinationals operating in imperfectly competitive service sectors in a multiregional general equilibrium framework. We find that the increased FDI barriers in services explain about one third of the total welfare loss of Brexit. Furthermore, our decomposition analysis (by introducing each type of barriers separately) shows that the barriers against the EU service multinationals in the UK are harmful to British manufacturing sectors because they face a reduced (and more expensive) supply of intermediate services.

show abstract

Section: Service Multinationals Versus Manufacturing Multinationalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Service Multinationals Versus Manufacturing Multinationalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foreign multinationals in service sectors: A general equilibrium analysis of Brexit

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modelling a disintegration process such as Brexit is a rather uncommon exercise given that in the last decades, we have been analysing the effects of globalisation (e.g. Latorre & Yonezawa, ; Ortiz‐Valverde & Latorre, ). However, the logic is analogous and just the opposite; in one case, barriers to trade go down, and in the other, they increase.…”

Section: The Model and Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computable general equilibrium analysis of Brexit: Barriers to trade and immigration restrictions

Valverde

Latorre

2019

World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper estimates the economic effects of different types of restrictions on trade and immigration in the United Kingdom after Brexit. Regarding trade restrictions, we focus on UK–EU increases in tariffs and non‐tariff barriers. We also analyse the removal of all tariffs in the UK to all its trading partners. Concerning immigration, we run a 5‐year cumulative annual reduction in net migrants by 87,000 workers following OECD estimations, which looks realistic even if there is a hard Brexit. The study is conducted using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, which allows us to estimate the impact on GDP, welfare, wages and capital remuneration, together with the evolution of aggregate and sectoral output, exports and imports. We obtain a more sizeable negative impact on the UK than other previous influential studies. Trade restrictions would generate welfare reductions between −0.38% and −1.94% for the UK, while they would be between −0.03% and −0.14% in the EU. This is because the EU is a crucial trade partner for the UK, which cannot be easily substituted through trade with other regions in the world. We simulate the impact of both reductions in net inflows and in the stock of EU migrants, accumulated through 5 years. Migration is compatible with wage increases but puts downward pressure on GDPpc. However, migration restrictions would not compensate the overall GDPpc contractions arising from a hard Brexit.

show abstract

“…6. Latorre and Yonezawa (2018) recently achieved the same extension of Balistreri, Tarr, and Yonezawa (2015) regarding FDI, but do not consider time-in-trade costs in their deep integration analysis. 7.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep integration in the Eurasian Economic Union: what are the benefits of successful implementation or wider liberalization?

Knobel

Lipin

Malokostov

et al. 2019

Eurasian Geography and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the potential gains to the members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) of successful deep integration through the reduction of time in trade costs, the reduction of non-tariff barriers in goods and the liberalization of barriers against foreign suppliers of services? We estimate that if the EAEU were to effectively implement its objectives for trade cost reduction, it would lead to welfare gains as a percent of consumption of 0.8% for Russia, 1.7% for Kazakhstan, 3.1% for Armenia and 4.8% for Belarus. If these deep integration measures were partially extended to third countries, the welfare gains would increase to 3.6% for Russia, 4.5% for Armenia, 6.3% for Kazakhstan and 7.2% for Belarus. We estimate that the right to legally work in the Russian Federation for Armenians is approximately of equal value to Armenia as the combined aspects of the reduction of trade costs, including spillovers. We identify the external region and reforms that are most important for each member country regarding reforms and spillovers; this may inform lobbying positions of the member governments. Our innovative model, that includes imperfect competition and foreign direct investment, produces important differences compared with a perfect competition model.

show abstract

Stopped TTIP? Its potential impact on the world and the role of neglected FDI

Cited by 20 publications

References 44 publications

Foreign multinationals in service sectors: A general equilibrium analysis of Brexit

Foreign multinationals in service sectors: A general equilibrium analysis of Brexit

A computable general equilibrium analysis of Brexit: Barriers to trade and immigration restrictions

Deep integration in the Eurasian Economic Union: what are the benefits of successful implementation or wider liberalization?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About