Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T18:20:54.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Binding Commitments on Services Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2019

Dan Ciuriak ,
Ali Dadkhah  and
Dmitry Lysenko Open the ORCID record for Dmitry Lysenko [Opens in a new window]
Dan Ciuriak
Affiliation:
Ciuriak Consulting, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APFC), C.D. Howe Institute, Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH
Ali Dadkhah
Affiliation:
Ciuriak Consulting
Dmitry Lysenko*
Affiliation:
Independent researcher
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has long been established in theory that uncertainty impacts on firm behaviour. However, the empirical basis for quantifying the uncertainty-reducing effects of trade agreements has not been firmly established. In this paper, we develop estimates of the effect of reducing uncertainty regarding regulation of foreign services markets by making commitments that are bound under a trade agreement. Specifically, we identify the effect on services trade of services trade restrictions, as measured by the OECD's Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI), and the separate effect of ‘water’ in binding commitments, as assessed by the difference between countries’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) or free trade agreements (FTAs) and applied levels of market access, as captured by STRI scores. Using a gravity model, we find that services trade responds positively but inelastically to reductions in services trade barriers, as measured by the STRI and, in our preferred regression, the response to actual restrictions is more than twice – specifically 2.4 times – as strong as the response to comparable reductions in uncertainty, as measured by water. Moving from GATS commitments to FTA commitments leads to a 4.7% increase in services trade because of the reduction in uncertainty.

Keywords

Bindingsservices tradeuncertaintywater in the GATSSTRIGTRIFTRI
Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 365 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Dan Ciuriak et al. 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is authored in a personal capacity and does not express the views of any institutions with which the authors are affiliated; no responsibility for or agreement with the results should be attributed to any institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

References

Anderson, JE and van Wincoop, E (2003) ‘Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle’, American Economic Review 93(1): 170– 192.10.1257/000282803321455214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, JE and Yotov, YV (2010) ‘The Changing Incidence of Geography’, American Economic Review 100(5): 2157– 2186.10.1257/aer.100.5.2157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, JE, Milot, CA, and Yotov, YV (2014) ‘How Much Does Geography Deflect Services Trade? Canadian Answers’, International Economic Review 55 (3): 791–818.10.1111/iere.12071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, SL and Bergstrand, JH (2009) ‘Estimating the Effects of Free Trade Agreements on International Trade Flows Using Matching Econometrics’, Journal of International Economics 77(1): 63– 76.10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, AB, Eaton, J, Jensen, JB, and Kortum, SS (2003) ‘Plants and Productivity in International Trade’, American Economic Review 93(4): 1268– 1290.10.1257/000282803769206296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, N, Bond, S, and Van Reenen, J (2007) ‘Uncertainty and Investment Dynamics’, Review of Economic Studies 74: 391– 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, I-H and Wall, HJ (2005) ‘Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade and Integration’, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 87(1): 49– 63.Google Scholar
Ciuriak, D, Xiao, J, and Dadkhah, A (2017) ‘Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership’, East Asian Economic Review 21(4): 343– 386.10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.4.334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, MA, Exton, O, and Han, L (2018) ‘Renegotiation of Trade Agreements and Firm Exporting Decisions: Evidence from the Impact of Brexit on UK Exports’, Cambridge-INET Working Paper Series No: 2018/10, 3 July.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, P (2005) ‘A Compendium of Barriers to Trade in Services’, Australian National University mimeo.Google Scholar
Dihel, N and Shepherd, B (2007) ‘Modal Estimates of Services Barriers’, OECD Trade Policy Papers 51.Google Scholar
Dixit, AK and Pindyck, RS (1994) Investment under Uncertainty, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egger, P (2005) ‘Alternative Techniques for Estimation of Cross-Section Gravity Models’, Review of International Economics 13(5): 881– 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2013) The Economic Impact of the EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Brussels: European Commission's Directorate-General for Trade.Google Scholar
Francois, J, Hoekman, B, and Woerz, J (2007) ‘Does Gravity Apply to Intangibles? Measuring Openness in Services’, Paper presented to the European Trade Study Group.Google Scholar
Francois, J and Hoekman, B (2010) ‘Services Trade and Policy’, Journal of Economic Literature 48(3): 642– 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geloso, GM, Gonzales, F, Miroudot, HK, Rouzet, ND, and Ueno, A (2015) ‘Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI): Scoring and Weighting Methodology’, OECD Trade Policy Papers 177.Google Scholar
Gootiiz, B and Mattoo, A (2009) ‘Services in Doha: What's on the Table?’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, K and Limão, N (2015) ‘Trade and Investment under Policy Uncertainty: Theory and Firm Evidence’, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7: 189– 222.Google Scholar
Haque, NU, Pesaran, MH, and Sharma, S (2000) ‘Neglected Heterogeneity and Dynamics in Cross-Country Savings Regressions’, in Krishnakumar, J and Ronchetti, E, Panel Data Econometrics: Future Directions, Amsterdam: Elsevier, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (2015) ‘TISA Talks Continue in Geneva, Eyeing July Stocktaking Session’, Bridges 19(6).Google Scholar
Kekic, L and Sauvant, KP (eds.) (2007) ‘World Investment Prospects to 2011: Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge of Political Risk’, The Economist Intelligence Unit and the Columbia Program on International Investment.Google Scholar
Kox, H and Lejour, A (2006) ‘Regulatory heterogeneity as obstacle for international services trade’, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/3114.pdf.10.2139/ssrn.2872032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, C and Nilsson, L (2015) ‘The EU–Korea Free Trade Agreement: Anticipation, Trade Policy Uncertainty and Impact’, Chief Economist Note 2, June.Google Scholar
Lamprecht, P and Miroudot, S (2018) ‘The Value of Market Access and National Treatment Commitments in Services Trade Agreements’, OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 213, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Matthews, BC, Wayne, EA, and Pan, C (2018) ‘Trade in Services Agreement: A Way Out of the Trade War?’, Blog, Atlantic Council, 23 July.Google Scholar
Melitz, MJ (2003) ‘The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity’, Econometrica 71(6): 1695– 1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miroudot, S and Pertel, K (2015) ‘Water in the GATS: Methodology and Results’, OECD Trade Policy Papers 185.Google Scholar
Nordås, HK (2016) ‘Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI): The Trade Effect of Regulatory Differences’, OECD Trade Policy Papers 189.Google Scholar
Nordås, HK and Rouzet, D (2017) ‘The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Trade Flows’, The World Economy 40(6): 1155– 1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) ‘Services Trade Restrictiveness Index: Policy Brief’, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Orr, RJ (2007) ‘The Impact of BITs on FDI: Do Investors Now Ignore BITs?’, Trade & Dispute Management 2.Google Scholar
Santos Silva, JMC and Tenreyro, S (2006) ‘The Log of Gravity’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4): 641– 658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvé, P (2013) ‘A Plurilateral Agenda for Services? Assessing the Case for a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)’, Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research on Trade Regulation Working Paper 2013/29.Google Scholar
Suvankulov, F (2015) ‘Revisiting National Border Effects in Foreign Trade in Goods of Canadian Provinces’, Bank of Canada Working Paper 2015–28.Google Scholar
United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and World Trade Organization (WTO) (2002) ‘Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services’, Series M 86, Statistical Papers, United Nations, Geneva.Google Scholar
Van der Marel, E and Shepherd, B (2013) ‘Services Trade, Regulation and Regional Integration: Evidence from Sectoral Data’, The World Economy 36(11): 1393– 1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K (2008) ‘Trade in Services: Does Gravity Hold?’, Journal of World Trade 42(2): 315– 334),Google Scholar
Wooldridge, JM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yackee, JW (2010) ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence’, University of Wisconsin Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ciuriak et al. supplementary material

Ciuriak et al. supplementary material 1

Download Ciuriak et al. supplementary material(File)
File 78.6 KB