IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v20y2002i1p91-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The New European Trade Preferences: Does ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) Help the Poor?

Author

Listed:
  • Sheila Page
  • Adrian Hewitt

Abstract

The EU’s offer of tariff‐ and quota‐free access for all exports from the Least Developed Countries (for Everything but Arms) has been welcomed as part of the WTO‐led initiative to assist these countries. But it is not without problems. As the Least Developed compete more with other developing countries than with the EU, trade is likely to be diverted from other, sometimes poorer, countries. (‘Least Developed’ is an official classification, not a neutral measure of poverty.) EBA contradicts and impedes the EU’s policies of reciprocity and promotion of regions: it not only creates an alternative trade regime, but seems unilaterally to break existing agreements. The article concludes that the policy was adopted for essentially political, not developmental, motives.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheila Page & Adrian Hewitt, 2002. "The New European Trade Preferences: Does ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) Help the Poor?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 20(1), pages 91-102, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:20:y:2002:i:1:p:91-102
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-7679.00159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7679.00159
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-7679.00159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Theodore Levantis & Frank Jotzo & Vivek Tulpulé, 2005. "Sweetening the Transition in EU Sugar Preferences: The Case of Fiji," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 893-915, June.
    2. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2016. "Are Trade Preferences more Effective than Aid in Supporting Exports? Evidence from the ‘Everything But Arms’ Preference Scheme," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1146-1171, August.
    3. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2009. "Trade as Aid: The Role of the EBA-Trade Preferences Regime in the Development Strategy," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 197, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Acharya, Rohini & Daly, Michael, 2004. "Selected issues concerning the multilateral trading system," WTO Discussion Papers 7, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    5. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2021. "Do Unilateral Trade Preferences Help Reduce Poverty in Beneficiary Countries?," EconStor Preprints 247346, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Rivera, Sandra A. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "How does China’s growth affect India? An Economywide Analysis," Conference papers 331359, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Alan Matthews & Jacques Gallezot, 2006. "The role of EBA in the political economy of CAP reform," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp133, IIIS.
    8. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Luca Monge-Roffarello & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "The EU's Everything But Arms Initiative and the Least-developed Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Sèna Kimm Gnangnon, 2023. "Do unilateral trade preferences help reduce poverty in beneficiary countries?," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 249-288, February.
    10. Ayele, Getaneh Mihret, 2021. "The Effect of Everything But Arms Trade Preference on the Exports of Ethiopia: Empirical Evidence Using Gravity Model," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 30(02), October.

    More about this item

    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:bla:devpol:v:20:y:2002:i:1:p:91-102. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.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.