IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/soueco/v7y2006i2p179-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NAMA Negotiations in the WTO and Preference Erosion

Author

Listed:
  • Mustafizur Rahman
  • Wasel Bin Shadat

    (Mustafizur Rahman is Research Director and Wasel Bin Shadat is Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Policy Dialogue, House 40\C, Road 11, Dhanmondi R\A, Dhaka–1209, Bangladesh. E-mail: mustafiz@cpd-bangladesh.org)

Abstract

The on-going negotiations on non-agricultural market access (NAMA) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) are expected to lead to substantive reductions in MFN tariff rates on industrial goods in both the developed and developing countries. Although the LDCs are not required to undertake any tariff reduction commitment under the Doha Round, they are likely to suffer substantive tariff preference erosion as a consequence of these negotiations since any reduction of MFN tariffs by the developed countries will result in a reduction in the preferential margins currently enjoyed by LDCs under the various GSP schemes operated by those developed countries. In this context this article undertakes the following: (a) reviews relevant literature dealing with the issue, (b) examines the importance of preference erosion for LDCs, and particularly for Bangladesh, (c) makes an attempt to estimate, under various scenarios, the range of preference erosion which Bangladesh is likely to suffer given her current trade pattern and the preferential treatment she currently enjoys as a beneficiary of the EU and US GSP schemes, and (d) presents a number of possible solutions to address the issue of preference erosion. In this context the article also reviews the WTO Ministerial Decision in Hong Kong as regards the duty free, quota free market access as articulated in Annex F of the Decision on S&D treatment for LDCs, and also subsequent developments with respect to NAMA negotiations in Geneva and examines their possible implications in terms of preference erosion for LDCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Mustafizur Rahman & Wasel Bin Shadat, 2006. "NAMA Negotiations in the WTO and Preference Erosion," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 7(2), pages 179-203, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:soueco:v:7:y:2006:i:2:p:179-203
    DOI: 10.1177/139156140600700202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/139156140600700202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/139156140600700202?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2005. "Multilateral solutions to the erosion of non-reciprocal preferences in NAMA," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2005-05, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    2. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    3. Mustafizur Rahman, 2005. "Ongoing WTO Negotiations and the Issue of Preference Erosion: Concerns of Asia-Pacific LDCs," ARTNeT Policy Briefs 1, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    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. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin, 2007. "Estimating censored and non homothetic demand systems : the generalized maximum entropy appoach," Post-Print hal-02814735, HAL.
    2. Md. Zafar Sadique, 2018. "The Emerging New Trade Alliance Scenario: Why the LDCs Should be Concerned," CPD Policy Brief 7, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
    3. Raihan, Selim & Razzaque, Mohammad A, 2007. "WTO and regional trade negotiation outcomes: quantitative assessments of potential implications on Bangladesh," MPRA Paper 38475, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fahmida Khatun & Debapriya Bhattacharya & Mustafizur Rahman, 2013. "Revisiting the PRSP Experience in Bangladesh: Perspectives on Representation, Accountability and Inclusiveness," CPD Working Paper 105, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
    5. Mustafizur Rahman, 2014. "Trade Benefits for Least Developed Countries: the Bangladesh Case Market Access Initiatives, Limitations and Policy Recommendations," CDP Background Papers 018, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.

    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. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin, 2007. "Estimating censored and non homothetic demand systems : the generalized maximum entropy appoach," Post-Print hal-02814735, HAL.
    2. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2408, Inter-American Development Bank.
    3. Sharma, Anupa & Grant, Jason & Boys, Kathryn, 2015. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205890, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Raihan, Selim & Razzaque, Mohammad A, 2007. "WTO and regional trade negotiation outcomes: quantitative assessments of potential implications on Bangladesh," MPRA Paper 38475, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Lawrence, Robert Z. & Rosito, Tatiana, 2006. "A New Compensation Mechanism for Preference Erosion in the Doha Round," Working Paper Series rwp06-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. 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.
    7. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2006. "Non-reciprocal preference erosion arising from MFN liberalitzation in agriculture: What are the risks?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2006-02, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    8. Arne Melchior, 2006. "The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1329-1346, October.
    9. Richard Pomfret & Uwe Kaufmann & Christopher Findlay, 2010. "Are Preferential Tariffs Utilized? Evidence from Australian Imports, 2000-9," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2010-13, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    10. Kazunobu Hayakawa & Fukunari Kimura & Nuttawut Laksanapanyakul, 2018. "Measuring the usage of preferential tariffs in the world," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(4), pages 705-723, November.
    11. HAYAKAWA Kazunobu & JINJI Naoto & MATSUURA Toshiyuki & YOSHIMI Taiyo, 2019. "Costs of Utilizing Regional Trade Agreements," Discussion papers 19054, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Priyadarshi, Shishir, 2016. "Has the multilateral Hong Kong Ministerial decision on duty free quota free market access provided a breakthrough in the Least developed countries' export performance?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2016-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    13. Hayakawa, Kazunobu & Nuttawut, Laksanapanyakul & Shiino, Kohei, 2013. "Some practical guidance for the computation of free trade agreement utilization rates," IDE Discussion Papers 438, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    14. Kazunobu Hayakawa & Nuttawut Laksanapanyakul, 2017. "Impacts of common rules of origin on FTA utilization," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 75-90, January.
    15. Scott McDonald & Terrie Walmsley, 2008. "Bilateral Free Trade Agreements and Customs Unions: The Impact of the EU Republic of South Africa Free Trade Agreement on Botswana," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(8), pages 993-1029, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    18. Hayakawa Kazunobu, 2015. "Impacts of FTA Utilization on Firm Performance," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 1325-1352, July.
    19. Sam LAIRD, 2007. "Aid for Trade: Cool Aid or Kool-Aid?," G-24 Discussion Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    20. Mathilde Douillet, 2012. "Trade policies and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa Comparative analysis in a Computable General Equilibrium framework [Politiques commerciales et agriculture en Afrique Sub-Saharienne : analyse c," SciencePo Working papers Main tel-03676037, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    JEL: F10; JEL: F13; JEL: F17; WTO; NAMA; Preference Erosion; LDCs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    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:sae:soueco:v:7:y:2006:i:2:p:179-203. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ips.lk/ .

    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.