The impact of Chinese technical barriers to trade on its manufacturing imports when exporters are heterogeneous

Ghodsi, Mahdi

doi:10.1007/s00181-019-01690-9

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, administrative barriers include provisions to prevent or restrict foreign goods such as the laws on import, embargo, import licenses, quotas, voluntary export restrictions, and mandatory localization rates. Second, the technical barrier is a nation's technical and quality requirements for goods coming from abroad (Ghodsi, 2019). In some cases, the authorities use these requirements as a way to impede imports into the domestic market (Cavusgil et al ., 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency

Doanh

Truong

Heo³

2020

JES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims at assessing the impact of institutional and cultural distances and trade barriers on ASEAN's trade efficiency using a panel data set of 65 countries for the period 2006–2017.Design/methodology/approachFirst, the authors applied an improved version of the stochastic frontier model to estimate the trade efficiency scores. After that, we used the system generalized method of moment (GMM) estimator to investigate the impacts of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency.FindingsThe results show that the trade efficiency of ASEAN countries with the rest of the world (ROW) is moderate, ranging from 0.561 to 0.612, but shows a downward trend. This result indicates that considerable trade potential exists between ASEAN countries and ROW. Institutional and cultural distances, as well as the trade barriers, negatively affect ASEAN's trade efficiency. Efforts to reduce differences in institutions and cultures and to promote trade liberalization are vital remedies for ASEAN countries to turn potentials into actual trade performance.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing literature in three different ways. First, this is the first study on the impact of the differences between internal and external characteristics on trade efficiency, specifically, the impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency. Second, to obtain accurate efficiency scores, the authors use an improved version of the stochastic frontier model proposed by Karakaplan (2018), which can control the problem of endogeneity. Third, in quantifying the determinants of trade efficiency, the authors apply a system GMM estimator, which allows us to overcome the problems of endogeneity, measurement errors, and omitted variables.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency

Doanh

Truong

Heo³

2020

JES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This count variable of stocks for TBTs and SPS measures is included as and , respectively. This variable has been used in earlier studies, such as Ghodsi et al (2016), Ghodsi et al (2017), Ghodsi and Stehrer (2019), and Ghodsi (2020a, 2020b).…”

Section: Data and Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that a reduction in NTMs would have a much larger impact than a tariff reduction. Disdier et al (2008), Li and Beghin (2012), Yousefi and Liu (2013), and Ghodsi (2020a) also found evidence of a negative impact of core NTMs on trade flows while Ronen (2017b) finds a trade-stimulative impact of quality NTMs imposed on virgin olive oil. Several other studies in the literature have analysed the trade restrictiveness of NTMs at the HS six-digit level by estimating the ad-valorem equivalent of NTMs (Kee et al, 2009; Beghin et al, 2015; Cadot and Gourdon, 2016; Ghodsi et al, 2016; Bratt, 2017; Cadot et al, 2018; Niu et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Non-Tariff Measures and the Quality of Imported Products

Ghodsi

Stehrer

2021

World Trade Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimate reasons for the imposition of non-tariff measures (NTMs) within regulations have triggered their extensive use. Among these measures, technical barriers to trade (TBTs) and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures allow countries to impose restrictions on the import of low-quality products suspected of harming domestic consumers’ health, plant life, or the environment. This paper analyses two regulative and standard-like NTMs – TBTs and SPS measures – and the quality of traded products that is driven by their imposition, which is a general underlying motive for the adoption of such regulations. A dummy variable measuring the existence of these NTMs and a count variable indicating their stringency are used in the analysis. Moreover, two other variables indicate flows of NTMs imposed in each year and stocks of these NTMs accumulated over years. The results indicate that TBTs and SPS measures do indeed imply a higher quality of traded products. Stringent TBTs with more regulations imposed in each year (i.e. flows of count TBTs) have the largest impact on the quality of traded products. However, for SPS measures, only the existence of a regulation (i.e. the dummy variable on flows of SPS measures) on a traded product has the strongest impact on its quality.

show abstract

“…While China had an average of 244 NTMs five years before its accession to the WTO (1996WTO ( to 2000, this average jumped to 1,582 between 2001 and 2006. 9 These barriers have made China the "country notifying the second largest number of technical barriers to trade (TBTs)," just after the United States (Ghodsi, 2020(Ghodsi, , p. 1667. This is in line with Evenett and Fritz (2018), who have shown that now, many countries are increasingly using nontransparent policy instruments (non-tariff or "murky" protectionism) as a main trade policy instrument.…”

Section: China's Accession To the World Trade Organization In 2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Historical Overview of the 21st-Century Protectionism

Albertoni

2021

LAJTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of this paper is to situate current trade policy debates in a proper historical context by analyzing the main trade policy milestones of the 21st-century. It does not attempt to offer an extensive historical overview of trade policy, which has been done masterfully by other scholars, but to analyze the events that have led to a stagnation of the multilateral trade system and rising protectionism. This paper begins with the winding road of trade liberalization since World War II, briefly tracing how we arrived from the early stages of the Bretton Wood System to the current moment of stagnation of the multilateral system and rising protectionism. It then turns to four key events to understand the current new reality: China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 to 2009, the trade war between the United States and China, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in trade policy dynamics. It concludes with some final comments on the relevance of understanding current trade debates from a historical perspective.

show abstract

The impact of Chinese technical barriers to trade on its manufacturing imports when exporters are heterogeneous

Cited by 23 publications

References 48 publications

Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency

Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency

Non-Tariff Measures and the Quality of Imported Products

A Historical Overview of the 21st-Century Protectionism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About