[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p5316-d1099668.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Rationale for Manifestations of Asymmetry in the Global Trading System

Author

Listed:
  • Tetiana Tananaiko

    (Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Olha Yatsenko

    (International Trade and Marketing Department, Kyiv National Economic University Named after Vadym Hetman, 03057 Kyiv, Ukraine)

  • Olha Osypova

    (Mathematical Modeling and Statistics Department, Kyiv National Economic University Named after Vadym Hetman, 03057 Kyiv, Ukraine)

  • Vitalii Nitsenko

    (Entrepreneurship and Marketing Department, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical Oil and Gas University, 76019 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Tomas Balezentis

    (Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Dalia Streimikiene

    (Laboratory of Energy Systems Research, Lithuanian Energy Institute, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract
The interconnected global trading system has proved to be both vulnerable and resistant to crises, despite its asymmetries. The global trading system is constantly changing under the influence of such factors as the digitalization of economic processes and the growing number of nontariff measures to regulate trade volumes, including trade protection measures introduced by countries in order to ensure national economic interests etc. This article analyzes the impact of the tariff and nontariff instruments of export and import regulation on the asymmetries of the global trading system across countries and separate customs territories, depending on their presence in geographical regions or groups of countries associated with different levels of economic development. In order to quantify the possible asymmetries in the global trading system, analysis of variance and regression analysis are applied to explain the variance in the volume of global trade. The regression models for the dependence of export volumes on a number of trade indicators are fitted for developed, developing, and least-developed countries alongside the global trading system as a whole. The research showed that asymmetries of the global trading system exist on the global, regional and bilateral levels. In this research, two types of asymmetries are discussed: asymmetry directly and indirectly linked to international trade processes. To ensure economic development, the global trading system must be modernized so as to reduce the asymmetry. Accordingly, in order to increase effectiveness of the World Trade Organization, suggestions are proposed in regards to reconsidering trade-dispute settling, improving the monitoring of members’ obligations, increasing negotiation process efficiency and defining criteria for categorizing members according to their economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • Tetiana Tananaiko & Olha Yatsenko & Olha Osypova & Vitalii Nitsenko & Tomas Balezentis & Dalia Streimikiene, 2023. "Economic Rationale for Manifestations of Asymmetry in the Global Trading System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:5316-:d:1099668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5316/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5316/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel P. Timmer & Bart Los & Robert Stehrer & Gaaitzen J. Vries, 2021. "Supply Chain Fragmentation and the Global Trade Elasticity: A New Accounting Framework," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 69(4), pages 656-680, December.
    2. Shiro Armstrong, 2014. "Economic Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific and the Global Trading System," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 513-521, September.
    3. Jean Pisani-Ferry, 2021. "Global asymmetries strike back," Essays and Lectures 44335, Bruegel.
    4. Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2016. "Terms of trade and global efficiency effects of free trade agreements, 1990–2002," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 279-298.
    5. C. Fred Bergsten, 1999. "The Global Trading System and the Developing Countries in 2000," Working Paper Series WP99-6, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    6. Levy, Philip I, 1997. "A Political-Economic Analysis of Free-Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 506-519, September.
    7. Åsa Johansson & Eduardo Olaberría, 2014. "Global Trade and Specialisation Patterns Over the Next 50 Years," OECD Economic Policy Papers 10, OECD Publishing.
    8. Bhagwati, Jagdish & Panagariya, Arvind, 1996. "The Theory of Preferential Trade Agreements: Historical Evolution and Current Trends," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 82-87, May.
    9. Bhagwati, Jagdish & Greenaway, David & Panagariya, Arvind, 1998. "Trading Preferentially: Theory and Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1128-1148, July.
    10. Alexander Keck & John Hancock & Coleman Nee, 2018. "Perspectives for Global Trade and the International Trading System," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 98(1), pages 16-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arvind Panagariya, 1999. "The Regionalism Debate: An Overview," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 455-476, June.
    2. Miljkovic, Dragan & Paul, Rodney, 2003. "Agricultural trade in North America: Trade creation, regionalism and regionalisation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Jagdambe, Subhash & Kannan, Elumalai, 2020. "Effects of ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on agricultural trade: The gravity model approach," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    4. Langhammer, Rolf J. & Wößmann, Ludger, . "Erscheinungsformen regionaler Integrationsabkommen im weltwirtschaftlichen Ordnungsrahmen: Defizite und Dynamik," Chapters in Economics,, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    5. Anne O. Krueger, 1999. "Are Preferential Trading Arrangements Trade-Liberalizing or Protectionist?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 105-124, Fall.
    6. Berger, Helge & Nitsch, Volker, 2008. "Gotcha! A Profile of Smuggling in International Trade," Conference papers 331735, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Wilhelm Kohler, 2000. "Die Osterweiterung der EU aus der Sicht bestehender Mitgliedsländer: Was lehrt uns die Theorie der ökonomischen Integration?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(2), pages 115-141, May.
    8. Egger, Hartmut & Egger, Peter & Greenaway, David, 2008. "The trade structure effects of endogenous regional trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 278-298, March.
    9. Langhammer, Rolf J., 1999. "The WTO and the millennium round: between standstill and leapfrog," Kiel Discussion Papers 352, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Constantinos Syropoulos, 2002. "On Tariff Preferences And Delegation Decisions In Customs Unions: A Heckscher--Ohlin Approach," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 625-648, July.
    11. Arvind Panagariya & Rupa Dutta Gupta, 2003. "Did the Multi-fiber Agreement Make the NAFTA Politically More Acceptable? A Theoretical Analysis," International Trade 0308010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Guyslain K. Ngeleza & Andrew Muhammad, 2015. "Preferential Trade Agreements Between the Monetary Community of Central Africa and the European Union: Stumbling or Building Blocks? A General Equilibrium Approach," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 251-272, March.
    13. Jin Zhang & Licun Xue & Lei Zu, 2013. "Farsighted free trade networks," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(2), pages 375-398, May.
    14. Wilhelm Kohler, 2000. "Die Osterweiterung der EU aus der Sicht bestehender Mitgliedsländer: Was lehrt uns die Theorie der ökonomischen Integration?," Economics working papers 2000-01, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    15. Panagariya, Arvind & Duttagupta, Rupa, 2002. "Politics of free trade areas: tariffs versus quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 413-427, December.
    16. Sangeeta Khorana & Badri G. Narayanan, 2017. "Modelling Effects of Tariff Liberalisation on India’s Key Export Sectors: Analysis of the EU–India Free Trade Agreement," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, February.
    17. Panagariya, Arvind & Krishna, Pravin, 2002. "On necessarily welfare-enhancing free trade areas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 353-367, August.
    18. Freund, Caroline, 2000. "Multilateralism and the endogenous formation of preferential trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 359-376, December.
    19. Beltramo, Theresa, 2010. "Changes in Bilateral Trade Costs between European Union Member States & Major Trading Partners: An Empirical Analysis from 1989 - 2006," MPRA Paper 24259, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ali Arbia, 2013. "Templates for Trade: Change, Persistence and Path Dependence in U. S. and EU Preferential Trade Agreements," KFG Working Papers p0051, Free University Berlin.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:5316-:d:1099668. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.