[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3977.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying the value of U.S. tariff preferences for developing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Dean, Judith M.
  • Wainio, John
Abstract
In recent debates, trade preference erosion has been viewed by some as damaging to developing countries, and by others as insignificant, except in a few cases. But little data have been available to back either view. The objective of this paper is to improve our measures of the size, utilization, and value of all U.S. nonreciprocal trade preference programs in order to shed light on this debate. Highly disaggregated data are used to quantify the margins, coverage, utilization, and value of agricultural and nonagricultural tariff preferences for all beneficiary countries in the U.S. regional programs and in the Generalized System of Preferences. Results show that U.S. regional tariff preference programs are generally characterized by high coverage of beneficiary countries'exports, high utilization by beneficiary countries, and low tariff preference margins (except on apparel). For 29 countries, the value of U.S. tariff preferences was 5 percent or more of 2003 dutiable exports to the United States, even after incorporating actual utilization. Most of this value is attributable to nonagricultural tariff preferences, and to apparel preferences in particular. These results suggest that preference erosion may be significant for more countries than many had thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Dean, Judith M. & Wainio, John, 2006. "Quantifying the value of U.S. tariff preferences for developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3977, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:3977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/07/26/000016406_20060726161222/Rendered/PDF/wps3977.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mr. Hans P Lankes & Miss Katerina Alexandraki, 2004. "The Impact of Preference Erosionon Middle-Income Developing Countries," IMF Working Papers 2004/169, International Monetary Fund.
    2. Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "EU Preferential Trade Policies and Developing Countries," International Trade 0308014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
    2. Bchir, Hedi & Chemingui, Mohamed & Hammouda, Hakim ben & Karingi, Stephen, 2006. "The Potential Payoffs of implementing the Hong Kong Deal on Agriculture for African Countries: a multilevel analysis," Conference papers 331514, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Chakir, Raja & Gallezot, Jacques, 2006. "The Utilisation of EU and US Trade Preferences for Developing Countries in the Agri-Food Sector," Working Papers 18867, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    4. Koopmann, Georg & Hoekstra, Ruth, 2010. "Aid for trade and the political economy of trade liberalization," HWWI Research Papers 2-22, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).

    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. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2018. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 15, pages 403-426, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Renuka Mahadevan & John Asafu‐Adjaye, 2010. "The Implications Of European Union Sugar Price Cuts, Economic Partnership Agreement, And Development Aid For Fiji," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(1), pages 52-64, January.
    3. Anupa Sharma & Jason Grant & Kathryn Boys, 2021. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalised System of (Trade) Preferences with Competing Suppliers," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 500-524, June.
    4. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    5. Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
    6. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2010. "The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 87-106.
    7. Anania, Giovanni, 2010. "EU Economic Partnership Agreements and WTO negotiations. A quantitative assessment of trade preference granting and erosion in the banana market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 140-153, April.
    8. Elbehri, Aziz & Wainio, John, 2006. "Preferential Tariffs, WTO and Developing Countries: Do the Gains from Multilateral Market Access Outweigh Preferential Access?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25644, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Ingo Borchert, 2009. "Trade diversion under selective preferential market access," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 1390-1410, November.
    10. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889.
    11. Countryman, Amanda M. & Narayanan, Badri G., 2017. "Price volatility, tariff structure and the special safeguard mechanism," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 399-408.
    12. Cooke, Edgar F. A., 2012. "Is the impact of AGOA heterogeneous?," MPRA Paper 43277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    14. Persson, Maria, 2012. "From trade preferences to trade facilitation: Taking stock of the issues," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-33.
    15. Walkenhorst, Peter & Cattaneo, Olivier, 2006. "Trade, Diversification and Growth in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 23735, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Laaksonen, Kalle & Maki-Franti, Petri & Virolainen, Meri, 2007. "Lome Convention, Agriculture and Trade Relations between the EU and the ACP Countries in 1975-2000," Working Papers 18853, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    17. Bchir, Hedi & Chemingui, Mohamed & Hammouda, Hakim ben & Karingi, Stephen, 2006. "The Potential Payoffs of implementing the Hong Kong Deal on Agriculture for African Countries: a multilevel analysis," Conference papers 331514, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Das, Dilip K., 2007. "Special Treatment and Policy Space for the Developing Economies in the Multilateral Trade Regime," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20.
    19. Erika Vianna Grossrieder, 2006. "Preference Erosion: The case of Bangladesh - A SUR-EC-AR Gravity Model of Trade," IHEID Working Papers 18-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised Aug 2007.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Free Trade; Trade Policy; Insurance&Risk Mitigation; Economic Theory&Research; Agribusiness&Markets;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wbk:wbrwps:3977. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.