scholarly journals Essays On Deep Trade Agreements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rohany-Tabatabai

<div>The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has increased tremendously since 1990. The natural question to ask is why. PTAs are not only about lowering down tariffs further than the most favoured nation (MFN) tariff levels. There are many economic and non-economic policies other than border policies that are addressed in PTAs. Trade agreements dealing with border policies (tariffs) are referred to as “shallow”; and those that are dealing with a broader set of policies are referred to as “deep”. Therefore, PTAs are about something deeper. Parallel to the increase in the PTAs, trade in intermediate inputs has grown exponentially over past decades. Therefore, the first question that arises is whether trade in intermediate inputs generates the need for deep integration. In this dissertation, we show that the nature of trade in intermediate goods requires deep integration. The second question to be addressed is whether the deep trade agreements need to be preferential. With a three-country model, we show that the deep bilateral agreements are rarely chosen over the shallow agreements. Finally, by introducing the deep integration in the multilateral trading system, we conclude that although trade in intermediate inputs calls for deep integration, they do not call for deep PTAs. However, deep integration is better implied under multilateral agreements. Therefore, the deep integration in economic policies does not contribute to the increase in the number of PTAs.</div>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rohany-Tabatabai

<div>The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has increased tremendously since 1990. The natural question to ask is why. PTAs are not only about lowering down tariffs further than the most favoured nation (MFN) tariff levels. There are many economic and non-economic policies other than border policies that are addressed in PTAs. Trade agreements dealing with border policies (tariffs) are referred to as “shallow”; and those that are dealing with a broader set of policies are referred to as “deep”. Therefore, PTAs are about something deeper. Parallel to the increase in the PTAs, trade in intermediate inputs has grown exponentially over past decades. Therefore, the first question that arises is whether trade in intermediate inputs generates the need for deep integration. In this dissertation, we show that the nature of trade in intermediate goods requires deep integration. The second question to be addressed is whether the deep trade agreements need to be preferential. With a three-country model, we show that the deep bilateral agreements are rarely chosen over the shallow agreements. Finally, by introducing the deep integration in the multilateral trading system, we conclude that although trade in intermediate inputs calls for deep integration, they do not call for deep PTAs. However, deep integration is better implied under multilateral agreements. Therefore, the deep integration in economic policies does not contribute to the increase in the number of PTAs.</div>


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS

AbstractThe disciplining of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) by the WTO has been ‘relaxed’ recently as a result of the new context (the Transparency Mechanism) within which notified PTAs are being multilaterally reviewed. This is probably a blessing for a number of reasons, including the success of the multilateral trading system in bringing tariffs down over the years (and the ensuing reduced trade diversion), the fact that modern PTAs deal with many non-trade issues as well (for which no WTO disciplines exist), and the recent empirical literature suggesting overall positive welfare implications for those participating in similar schemes. This paper discusses these and other reasons to support the view that the WTO should rather focus on the multilateral agenda instead of diverting its attention towards disciplining PTAs. In more concrete terms, this paper argues in support of the thesis that the Transparency Mechanism should not be simply a de facto substitute of the previous regime (where outlawing a PTA could not a priori be excluded), but the de jure new forum to discuss PTAs within the multilateral trading system, at least for the time being. A first do-no-harm-policy is one of the rationales for the thesis advocated here.


2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (04) ◽  
pp. 1250030
Author(s):  
KORNKARUN CHEEWATRAKOOLPONG

This paper studies the effect of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on multilateral trading system using a sequential bargaining game. The study considers two formats of PTAs, i.e., when the PTA tariffs are specified before the formation of PTAs and when PTA members have to negotiate PTA tariffs after the formation of PTAs. The study finds that PTAs with specified tariffs can be building blocks to multilateral liberalization while PTAs without specified tariffs are stumbling blocks. The paper also concludes that PTAs can eliminate bargaining inefficiency called forward manipulation when PTA tariffs are specified before PTA negotiation.


Author(s):  
Leonardo Borlini

An increasingly important aspect of EU trade policy since the lifting of its self-imposed moratorium on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has been the inclusion of WTO+ provisions on subsidies in bilateral agreements negotiated with a number of third countries. This article covers the main bilateral PTAs negotiated after the publication of the Commission’s Communication on ‘Global Europe’ in order to explore the implications of the different subsidy disciplines they set out. It also discusses the questions that arise when examining the legal discipline of public aid provided by such agreements, regarding not only the substantive appropriateness of standards and rules on compatibility, but also the procedural mechanisms designed to guarantee the implementation and the enforcement of such rules. It concludes that the most advanced among the EU PTAs are shaped as competition regulation and go beyond a mere negative function, ensuring that subsidies can contribute to fundamental public goals.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Shik Lee

AbstractThe current multilateral trading system under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) displays a substantial development gap in the regulatory and institutional frameworks. The Doha Round negotiations, which was initiated to promote development interests under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), have not been concluded for over 14 years, raising doubts about the ability of the WTO system to promote development interests effectively. While the Doha Round was sluggish for a number of years, regional trade agreements, which currently include every WTO Member, have been proliferated, creating significant implications for developing countries. This article examines the development of the Doha Round, analyzes the causes of its impasse, and explores its future prospects. The article also discusses the development gap in the current trading system and advances reform proposals to fill the gap in the system.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-248
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue

This article examines the question of whether the wto enjoys a monopoly over the settlement of trade disputes by examining the historical context of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the wto, including early dispute resolution under the gatt and the goal behind the transformation leading to the wto of curbing potential unilateralism within the trade regime. It argues that this culminated in the intention to create a centralized rule-based system for the settlement of disputes, rather than an intention to create a monopoly for the wto. The article examines potential threats to the so-called monopoly, in particular with the proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (rtas) and the development of Mutually Agreed Solutions (mas). It also addresses relevant case law to demonstrate that the wto does not and was not intended to enjoy a monopoly over trade disputes. Rather, the wto pursues the objective of strengthening the multilateral trading system rather than encouraging unilateral trade action, which would not appear to be undermined by resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of relevant rtas or other dispute settlement mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document