[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331124.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Preferences, WTO Negotiations and the LDCs: the case of the "Everything But Arms" Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Yu, Wusheng
  • Jensen, Trine Vig
Abstract
This paper aims to estimate benefits of the recently adopted "Everything But Arms" (EBA) initiative of the EU to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and to show how these benefits will be eroded in the presence of possible further multilateral trade liberalization under the WTO. Simulation results indicate that total welfare impacts of the EBA are less than US$300 million for all the LDCs and that a great deal of these gains are associated with three "sensitive" products that are subject to lengthy implementation period, especially sugar. Impacts of the EBA on the EU and third countries appear to be negative but quite small. Considering its limited product coverage (mainly agricultural goods) and the existing preferences granted in the past, these results are not surprising. Multilateral trade negotiations exert pressures on the EU to reduce its protections, which may lower the high domestic prices in the EU and decrease the attractiveness of the EBA. Further results indeed show that gains for the LDCs from the EBA will be greatly reduced under a series of "plausible" WTO scenarios in which the EU cuts its protections. However, not pursuing multilateral trade liberalization for the purpose of keeping these preferences meaningful would cause much greater welfare losses to the whole world and ultimately would harm the LDCs in the long run. This study concludes that other policy options should be made available in conjunction with trade policy reforms to ease LDCs’dependency on trade preferences and to foster their supply capacities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu, Wusheng & Jensen, Trine Vig, 2003. "Trade Preferences, WTO Negotiations and the LDCs: the case of the "Everything But Arms" Initiative," Conference papers 331124, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331124/files/1321.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konings, Jozef, 1997. "Competition and Firm Performance in Transition Economies: Evidence from Firm Level Surveys in Slovenia, Hungary and Romania," CEPR Discussion Papers 1770, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Stijn Claesens & Simeon Djankov & Gerhard Pohl, 1997. "Ownership and Corporate Governance : Evidence from the Czech Republic," World Bank Publications - Reports 11584, The World Bank Group.
    3. Robert E. Anderson & Simeon Dejankov & Gerhard Pohl & Stijn Claessons, 1997. "Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe," World Bank Publications - Reports 11576, The World Bank Group.
    4. Aghion, Ph. & Dewatripont, M. & Rey, P., 1997. "Corporate governance, competition policy and industrial policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 797-805, April.
    5. J. Stiglitz, 1999. "Whither Reform? Ten Years of the Transition," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 7.
    6. Frederic Warzynski, 2000. "The Causes and Consequences of Managerial Change in Ukraine and the Complementarity of Reforms," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1743, Econometric Society.
    7. Estrin, Saul & Rosevear, Adam, 1999. "Enterprise performance and ownership: The case of Ukraine," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 1125-1136, April.
    8. Frydman, Roman & Gray, Cheryl & Hessel, Marek & Rapaczynski, Andrzej, 1997. "Private Ownership and Corporate Performance: Some Lessons from Transition Economies," Working Papers 97-28, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    9. Boycko, Maxim & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1996. "A Theory of Privatisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 309-319, March.
    10. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242.
    11. Ann P. Bartel & Ann E. Harrison, 1999. "Ownership versus Environment: Why are Public Sector Firms Inefficient?," NBER Working Papers 7043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Oliver D. Hart, 1983. "The Market Mechanism as an Incentive Scheme," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 366-382, Autumn.
    13. Barberis, Nicholas & Maxim Boycko & Andrei Shleifer & Natalia Tsukanova, 1996. "How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 764-790, August.
    14. J. David Brown & John S. Earle, 2000. "Competition and Firm Performance: Lessons from Russia," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 296, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    15. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    16. repec:lic:licosd:8800 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Klaus M. Schmidt, 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(2), pages 191-213.
    18. Nandini Gupta & John C. Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 323, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    19. Dutz, Mark & Hayri, Aydin, 1999. "Does More Intense Competition Lead to Higher Growth?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2249, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Kornai, Janos, 1992. "The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198287766.
    21. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    22. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    23. Kikeri, Sunita & Nellis, John & Shirley, Mary, 1994. "Privatization: Lessons from Market Economies," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(2), pages 241-272, July.
    24. Pohl, G. & Anderson, R.E. & Claessens, S. & Djankov, S., 1997. "Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options," Papers 368, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    25. Frydman, Roman & Gray, Cheryl W. & Hessel, Marek & Rapaczynski, Andrzej, 1997. "Private ownership and corporate performance : some lessons from transition economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1830, The World Bank.
    26. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    27. Michael Ian Cragg & I.J. Alexander Dyck, 1999. "Management Control and Privatization in the United Kingdom," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 475-497, Autumn.
    28. Earle, John S & Estrin, Saul, 1997. "After Voucher Privatization: The Structure of Corporate Ownership in Russian Manufacturing Industry," CEPR Discussion Papers 1736, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    29. Dyck, I J Alexander, 1997. "Privatization in Eastern Germany: Management Selection and Economic Transition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 565-597, September.
    30. Carlin, Wendy & Fries, Steven & Schaffer, Mark & Seabright, Paul, 2001. "Competition and Enterprise Performance in Transition Economies: Evidence from a Cross-country Survey," CEPR Discussion Papers 2840, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    31. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-452, June.
    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. Andreyeva Tatiana, 2003. "Company Performance in Ukraine: What Governs its Success," EERC Working Paper Series 03-01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    2. Schnytzer, Adi & Andreyeva, Tatiana, 2002. "Company performance in Ukraine: is this a market economy?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 83-98, June.
    3. Yurii Perevalov & Ilya Gimadii & Vladimir Dobrodei, 2000. "Does Privatisation Improve Performance of Industrial Enterprises? Empirical Evidence from Russia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 337-363.
    4. Simeon Djankov & Stijn Claessens, 1997. "Enterprise Performance and Managers' Profiles," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 115, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    5. Harper, Joel T., 2002. "The performance of privatized firms in the Czech Republic," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 621-649, April.
    6. Warzynski, Frederic, 2003. "Managerial change, competition, and privatization in Ukraine," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 297-314, June.
    7. Dobrodey Vladimir & Gimadi Ilya & Perevalov Yuri, 2001. "The Impact of Privatisation on the Performance of Medium and Large Industrial Enterprises," EERC Working Paper Series 2k/01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    8. Mr. Alexander Pivovarsky, 2001. "How Does Privatization Work? Ownership Concentration and Enterprise Performance in Ukraine," IMF Working Papers 2001/042, International Monetary Fund.
    9. Simeon Djankov, 1999. "Ownership Structure and Enterprise Restructuring in Six Newly Independent States," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 41(1), pages 75-95, April.
    10. Barbara Blaszczyk & Iraj Hashi & Alexander Radygin & Richard Woodward, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Ownership Structure in the Transition: The Current State of Knowledge and Where to Go from Here," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0264, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    11. Earle, John S. & Telegdy, Almos, 2002. "Privatization Methods and Productivity Effects in Romanian Industrial Enterprises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 657-682, December.
    12. Alan Bevan & Saul Estrin & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Determinants of Enterprise Performance during Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 9903, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    13. Jones, Derek C. & Mygind, Niels, 1999. "The Nature and Determinants of Ownership Changes after Privatization: Evidence from Estonia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 422-441, September.
    14. Goergen, Marc & Manjon, Miguel C. & Renneboog, Luc, 2008. "Recent developments in German corporate governance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 175-193, September.
    15. Ichiro IWASAKI & Satoshi MIZOBATA, 2018. "Post-Privatization Ownership And Firm Performance: A Large Meta-Analysis Of The Transition Literature," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(2), pages 263-322, June.
    16. Claessens,Constantijn A. & Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    17. Wang, Kun Tracy & Shailer, Greg, 2022. "Multiple performance criteria for government-controlled firms," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 75-96.
    18. D'Souza, Juliet & Megginson, William L. & Ullah, Barkat & Wei, Zuobao, 2017. "Growth and growth obstacles in transition economies: Privatized versus de novo private firms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 422-438.
    19. Djankov, Simeon, 1999. "Restructuring of insider-dominated firms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2046, The World Bank.
    20. Jana Fidrmucova, 2000. "Channels of Restructuring in Privatized Czech Companies," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1358, Econometric Society.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331124. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.